Is it worth learning another systems?

It's generally worth trying other systems because a lot of the time the different mechanics mean that what you're doing and the sorts of decisions your making whilst playing/GMing between different systems, even in the same genre, can be very different and people have all sorts of preferences, there could be a system in which you have to do none of the stuff you find annoying and get to focus on the parts of gaming you love the most, there probably isn't but you might find one you enjoy better than D&D5e.

>>48636971
Every RPG system is geared towards a certain playstyle. D&D is geared towards long term campaigns of hack & slash, pillage & plunder, loot & level. PC mortality is low, HPs are high and building an optimal character is a widespread activity.

A system like, otoh, Harnmaster is geared towards a medieval, low fantasy, low magic, high realism setting. Combat is brutal, including amputations, and even if you survive, any open wound might cause you to die of infection. It's not about teasure-hunting heroes, it's about a semi-realistic, low magic, medieval experience.

A system like Warhammer 1E/2E is geared towards dark fantasy - which means another quiet lethal combat system with rules for bloody, debilitating criticals. However it sits between Harnmaster and D&D in a number of ways (mid magic, treasure hunting is more feasible, etc).

Never having played Dragon Age, I believe it is geared towards more cineastic action with its stunt rules.

A Song Of Ice And Fire RPG features rules for Intrigue and creating your own Clan, stuff you would expect from the setting.

Ideally, you as as GM, develop a vision of what kind of gameplay you want long-term out of your fantasy. What is fantasy gaming about for you? What is most interesting to explore? And when you have that, you come back here and ask people about what system is best suited to this playstyle.

>>48637096
I very much appreciate your answer. Thank you.

Getting the hook of your question, i think what i like the most about D&D and what i look in a TTRPG is the creative freedom it allows me in combat. I really liked the spells in 5ed, especially the bard and druid ones. I really like the concept of magical items, that grants me features, i like how resting while travelling can be harsh and i find the whole magic system to be quite appealing though i would like to try something a little more low magic (in the level of LoTR maybe).
I dont like to feel restrict to a a certain party set up or feeling that i have to built my character in an optional way for combat. I really liked the concept of bounded accuracy in 5ed.
I would probably be interested if any other TTRPG allowed me more freedom without being too crunchy (i like things fluid and simple)

>>48637203
I'm not sure what you would consider crunchy or not but Mutants and Masterminds 3e is pretty much designed for freedom in combat, the character creation allows you to create your abilities based on their affects and then fluff them as you like and the ranks table means you can figure out exactly what your character can and can't do, like how far they can throw an object of a given weight, which is nice to have if you want to be able to interact with the environment and otherwise use your abilities in creative ways.

>>48636971
If you really like tactical miniatures combat, D&D 4th Edition is the game for you.

Otherwise I'd stay with 5E D&D, not simply because it's an enjoyable and functional system, but also because it's the one with which you're most likely to find fellow players and DMs to have a game with.

>>48636971
You don't need to learn any other system. D&D is pretty malleable and if you don't want another setting is the best TTRPG available

>>48637249
Currently running s M&M 3e game, having played 3.5, 4e. Pathfinder and 5e and it's rule system is so much simpler but allows you to fluff your powers however you want. I stead of players just rolling attacks I've gotten them in the habit of describing what they're doing. While we did this in other systems it just feels so much better describing their effects to players when they hit or miss.

>>48637203
>>48637338
Well, it all depends on other factors too, of course. Availability of players is one aspect, for sure. Also, a given group of players might prefer to only play one game, ever. That's one extreme end. Others, like me and my friends, are constantly changing settings and systems. With us, it's more like people wanting to show the others what cool new RPG/setting they discovered and then they run it a couple of times before someone else with the next new shiny comes along. Drawback: you rarely get to play a PC from low level to high level. Usually, the campaign fizzles out at mid levels.

People who like "freeform" mechanics like Apocalypse World/Dungeon World, Fiasco, or Microscope say they're great exercises in improvisational GMing and storytelling. There are also other genres like sci-fi, horror, superhero, or really niche settings like Mouse Guard or Glorantha, that work best with their own game systems.

But if your main interest is traditional dungeon-crawling fantasy, you'd be safe sticking with D&D.

>>48636971
>Is it worth learning another systems?
Personally, I find the answer is almost always yes.
Being familiar with more systems has made me a much better GM and player. It gives you an appreciation for the how and why, and can give you more perspective on what sort of things you might find satisfying.

I think that learning (and more importantly, playing) other systems makes you a better roleplayer in general, simply because it allows you to come into contact with different styles of playing. Which isn't to say that you can't be a good roleplayer without it or that exploring a dozen games will turn a bad roleplayer into a good one, but simply experiencing some alternatives, having different kinds of limitations imposed on you and interacting with games in different ways forces you to think about the way you play more than just being that guy who's never played anything but 3.pf.

As an added bonus (which might even be more important to some groups), it allows you to find out which style of play suits you better. There's literally nothing wrong with just sticking with a game you know and like, but exploring some different types of games might just lead you to a game that's even better suited to your group than what you're playing right now, which in the long run will only increase your enjoyment of the hobby.

I think it can only add, but isn't necessary at all.

i would add that you're not really part of the greater hobby if you have only played 1 or 2 role-playing game systems. it's a bit like saying that you're a great fan of the theatre but only watch plays by william shakespeare.

>>48636971

Yes, absolutely. You should read and if possible try as many diverse rpgs as you can, at the very least D&D, GURPS, World of Darkness, Unknown Armies, Pendragon, and Hero Quest. You'll be amazed how many useful tricks you can pick up from other systems to houserule your own preferred system, or even to brew your own system (don't try this until you've played many different rpgs or you will waste your time reinventing the wheel.)

Every game is going to produce a different atmosphere and type of game, and every game is going to excel at something else. If you really enjoy 5e, nobody is going to come and punch you until you try something else. However, I really encourage you to look at other systems and give them a shot. You may find something that really grabs you and changes how you play.

I'd recommend giving Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay a shot, to see a slightly lower power, grittier type of game with some horror elements, to see if you like that.

If you're into some weeb stuff, try Legend of the Five Rings.

If you like Sword and Sorcery, try RuneQuest.

Or, you could go nuts and find some of the more focused and niche games and give them a shot. These are especially good since they're good for one shot games. You can try them for a session or two and then switch. I'm talking about things like Barbarians of Lemuria, Tenra Bansho Zero, and the like.

>>48639378
Personally I find myself getting more use out of things I learned from microgames like Lasers & Feelings, or exceptionally frivolous systems like Maid RPG, but that's probably because I've also exposed myself to a variety of other, heavier games for contrast.

File: tmp_25081Reporting_from_the_bleeding_edge_of_current_events280880342.png (6KB, 714x114px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 714x114px

>>48636971

One thing I really dislike is this idea that all RPGs require the same absurd level of system mastery as D&D. So many games can be learned and set up in one session. I'd check out some retroclones or other d20 systems as a start to keep some familiar elements. However I strongly encourage you to branch out. Play some story games like fiasco or lasers and feelings. Play some Call of Cthulhu (even though it isn't a great system mechanically) and just get as much different experience as you can. I can almost guarantee it will change how you play RPGs for the better.

>>48636971
it all depends on how much op detests reading a new rulebook. for some it's exciting, like dating a new girlfriend. for others, it is just unpleasant work. personally, i fall into the first group, so many exciting new things to discover.

>>48639874
The problem for me is finding people willing to play other RPGs. In my country and city i only know my friends who play and they are pretty satisfied with playing only dnd.

>>48640002
Ask them to try a different game for a night, as a one shot.

>>48640002

That sounds as asinine to me as eating the same thing every night for the rest of your life because you like it. You just gotta do the ground work for them. You run the game, you decide the rules.

>>48639874
RPGs are a visual prducts. You are your friends should google image search the names of various other RPGs and see if one or the other RPG's illustrations makes you go:
>Oh, neat! Man, I wanna play this.
I mean... there's a reason why game companies spend a shit ton of cash on art.

>>48640264
was meant to refer to >>48640002

>>48640264
>there's a reason why game companies spend a shit ton of cash on art
Because they know there's no other selling point.

Some of the best games I've played have had terrible art, and some terrible games have fantastic art.

File: stone_dnd5e_f-halfling-bard.jpg (66KB, 500x703px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x703px

>>48640306

Yeah like 5e. Terrible game but amazing art.

>>48640306
Art is for getting people intrigued. No more but also no less.

I am not OP but there's something wrong about liking D&D and not wanting to learn others RPGs? The only one i find interesting too is WFRP but i don't want to do the work to learn it.

Hey /tg/, I eat nothing but potatoes. Is it even worth it to try other foods?

>>48640725
a lot of rpgs take less work to learn to play than D&D so if that's your only comparison then you may be overestimating the difficulty of learning new rules

>>48640990
I am comparing to D&D 5ed that most people say its really newbie friendly.

>>48640729
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5Hls

>>48636971
Please be bait.

>>48640729
Even if you don't include them in your diet regularly, more narrative vegetables and OSR inspired high protein/low carb dishes can be worth trying. Heck, even ordering in 4th edition calzone can give you some new ideas about 5th edition pizza.

>>48640264
THIS. So much this. At least for me.

File: 3e is the best.jpg (85KB, 400x398px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 400x398px

>>48637449
I wish I could hate you to death.

>>48642880
But i have played a lot of TTRPGs.

>>48642991
And you are encouraging the creation of shitheels with your blatant lies. Besides death is too good for you, I hope you get penile cancer.

>>48643074
Penile cancer is too much, man. Ass cancer is fine enough.

>>48636971

It's definitely worth learning other systems. Discovering what appeals to you and what doesn't is never a terrible decision. You may find that nothing quite scratches your RPG itch like D&D (any edition), or you may find that D&D isn't appealing anymore when you can use [other fantasy system].

There's a lot of things you're potentially "missing" by only playing D&D. Not every fantasy RPG has levels or classes, and there are a wide variety of science fiction, science fantasy, low fantasy, high fantasy, low magic, high magic, sword & (sorcery, sandals, planet) games and settings out there.

Some of my favorites include OSR (older D&D editions, and their clones), Alternity (a sci-fi game), Battletech, the old World of Darkness (vampires, werewolves, mages and ghosts, oh my), Pendragon, and Mutants & Masterminds.

>>48637026
This to be honest. You should try different systems just to expand your horizon. On average though, you'll probably wind up flitting back to D&D just because it's accessible. So I wouldn't recommend spending any dosh on books unless you REALLY like the system. And I mean enough that your entire table wants to consistently run it for a month. Otherwise, you gonna wind up like neckbeards like me who have a bookshelf full of games you've played once or twice and then never again.

>>48643349
It was what happened to me but i wind up back to GURPS.

Learning new systems is a good experience.
Some will suck or may hate them while liking certain mechanics.
I started playing tabletops two years ago and so far these are the systems I have tried (not counting homebrews)
>D&D 5e
>Savage worlds
>SPECIAL/SIMPLE (fallout system)
>shadowrun
I loved SPECIAL, and I really wanna play another campaing, but my group never wants to run fallout, and if they do it's a shitty setting that doesn't capture the feel of fallout, or a total different setting and well, feels wrong to use SPECIAL for stuff that's not post apoc

>>48636971
retard

>>48636971
>Is it worth learning another systems?
Well, yeah, how else are you ever to discover what systems you like and which you don't? By listening to /tg/? HA! oh! that would be disastrous!

>>48636971
Yes. You r'lyeh should play some Call of Cthulhu.

>>48636971
I wanna reiterate it here too: it's always Deendeefags that ask this question. Always.

Don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise. You stay with your first system. You don't switch the the last world series winner or the last super bowl winner. You don't jump ship on your game.

There's nothing wrong with liking plain ole 5e. If that's what you and your friends want to play, go for it! You may want to look around and find other systems in the future. Pathfinder and Shadowrun are some good places to go from DnD.

>>48639699
>I must leave
5e doesn't really require an absurd level of mastery.

File: popuko-reading.png (124KB, 398x275px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 398x275px

>>48640729
Yes you fucking mick. There's a whole wide world of cuisine out there.

Are there any other good systems out there for a modern dark fantasy/horror like Call of Cthulhu?

>>48650023
Maybe Call of Cthulhu?

>>48636971
Shadowrun has a really interesting gameplay it pushes. So much so that i often find myself incorporating ideas into my other campaigns without immediately realizing those ideas come from shadowrun.

>>48650023
Afmbe/witchcraft /Armageddon?

>>48637555
>Usually, the campaign fizzles out at mid levels.
Then start at Mid-Level and work your way to high. Just take a look through the DMs handbook and pass out a few mid-level items like +1/+2 armor and weapon or a few magical items beforehand. I find it fun as a player to just roll with what the DM hands me.

>>48636971
Learn GURPS really well, never need another system, never find any players.

>>48652388
http://www.mtv.com/videos/interview/692901/bubonicon-43-george-rr-martin-talks-gurps.jhtml

>>48643074
>blatant lies

Pretending any RPG system isn't malleable just so you can try and trick people into playing the system your shilling for is the lie here.

Yes, 5e certainly isn't the best system out there, and you may at least want to try different genres.

>>48653326
But D&D is about the least malleable system out there. It does not do anything other Fantasy well and does Modern game very poorly.

>>48654338
What do you mean by modern game?

>>48654490
As in set in modern times like with guns and shit. The mountains of HP D&D characters accumulate tend to make guns an absolute joke.

>>48654490
D20 Modern.

So is saw some people giving examples of rule-light rpg's. What would be the best rule light rpg to get some new players into role-playing? Preferably focussed on adventuring and running around like a retard, and with an excessible setting like dnd.

File: lasers_and_feelings_rpg.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48654725
Lasers and Feelings. It is Star Trek with the serial numbers filed off.

>>48654816
Thank you so much! I never heard of this but it looks like good fun and quick to start.

>>48636971
>>48654490
I just want to quickly point out Star Wars D20/Saga Edition here. I mean Star Wars + D&D, ZOMG! This must be the bestest game evar! Well, I have only have played Saga Edition but... no. Not the bestest game evar. Probably not even the bestest Star Wars RPG evar (WEG anyone). Just because you combine 2 great brands, the result isn't overwhelming. It's decent.

That's why, for the best gaming experience, it's great to understand the strength and weaknesses of a system and to match it to playstyle and setting. And, yes of course, it's perfectly legitimate to settle for a less fine-tailored gaming experience. This is fine! But we should call a spade a spade.

>>48654338
>more lies

Who are you even trying to talk to? Do you really think you can just continue to lie like that and not get called out on it?

You're like a kid caught with mud on his shoes, trying to blame the dog and convinced that as long as you don't admit anything and keep lying, you can avoid shame and punishment.

>>48656720

When D&D added sci-fi elements, it was usually divorced from D&D proper and relegated to a module/adventure path.

Even then, it never forgot that at its core, D&D was a game that was about dungeon crawling and exploration through a world in which magic and monsters were real.

As much as 3.PFags like you want others to believe, D&D is not a malleable system and it was never trying to be a be one in the first place.

We live in a world where there are dozens, if not hundreds, of systems for people to use and it's silly to put all of this time and effort into shoving a square peg through a circular hole when you already have a circular peg that's available to use.

>>48657157
Dude, get the fuck over yourself.
You're talking about a system that has thousands of variant rules to allow you to play any damn game you want in just about any genre, with some genres even having dedicated settings built specifically for them.

Just because you need to figure out some sales pitch to lure people away from D&D doesn't mean you can just lie about it like you think no one's actually played the game you're hoping to scare people away from.

>>48655132
I'd go as far as to say that Star Wars d20 is the worst iteration of the Star Wars RPG. Both WEG and FFG's versions are much more fun. Like >>48657157 said it is jamming a square peg into a round hole.

>>48636971
Yes, for several reasons:

>Different systems may lend themselves to different kinds of fantasy, and the system may lend itself better to different kind of games previously unexplored.
>Different games may also present good ideas which you can later present/incorporate into your groups/campaigns/setting elsewhere.
>Knowing more systems can get you into more groups.
>In addition, knowing different systems can attract different kind of players.
>It's always good to know a backup system if people get tired (if you aren't GMing, speak to your local GMs get tips on how to learn. A GM who can relax and play some games is a happy one.)

Not everything is going to require the same amount of effort (which is admittedly pretty small) as DnD - some will be easier, some will be harder. Some will be good, some will be bad.

For the record, the answer to "I only play one system, should I learn another" is Yes 100% of the time. Even if you end up sticking to your guns for now the perspective and ideas presented in other systems are good to peruse and gain an understanding of the rest of the hobby.

>>48657486

>You're talking about a system that has thousands of variant rules to allow you to play any damn game you want in just about any genre, with some genres even having dedicated settings built specifically for them.

We're also talking about a game where magic literally solves everything and martials cap out at level 5.

I mean, it's nice that there are variant rules that would theoretically run any session I want but if given the choice I'd rather just use a system that already takes those considerations in mind.

>Just because you need to figure out some sales pitch to lure people away from D&D doesn't mean you can just lie about it like you think no one's actually played the game you're hoping to scare people away from.

What?

Dude, get over yourself.

>>48657625
If you're just going to admit you don't know what you're talking about, you might want to first try getting the fuck over yourself before telling someone they have to play with magic as if there wasn't a hundred classes that didn't use it.

It's a big game with tons of different ways to play, and arguing you can't or that it's even hard is either admitting you are an idiot, or that you're pathetically trying to scare people away from what people have been doing from the very beginning of the system and roleplaying games in general.

So, which is it? Are you an idiot or a liar?

>>48657486
And none of the D&D variant geared towards a certain playstyle are as good as dedicated systems. For example, if you want a FATE-like experience, you best play FATE and not a D&D 5E experience.

In fact, to be as good as, for example, Harnmaster at gritty, medieval fantasy, you must change D&D's system so much that it stops being D&D.

So stop being a retarded D&D shill. Your shilling is based on nothing but the ignorance of people who have never played anything else but D&D.

>>48657717
So, an idiot. Good to know, because I don't need to discuss things any further with an idiot.

>>48657710
>It's a big game with tons of different ways to play,
No, it does NOT have tons of different ways to play it in a satisfying manner. I do not doubt that the D20-based system can be changed so much that it caters to other playstyles. But then it stops being D&D.

>>48657728
I'll accept this as your concession speech.

But I will reiterate it for people who have so for only played D&D: shills like this anon will claim that D&D is as good as any other, dedidcated system because they know you don't have the experience under your belt to compare.

>>48657741
Cute fallacy, dumdum.

"You can't use D&D for that!"
"I just did. Using variant rules printed right there in the books."
"BUT THAT'S NOT A TRUE SCO-, I MEAN, TRUE D&D."

Fuck off, idiot.

>>48657763
Nice attempt at damage control.
I like how you're trying to reverse the shill accusation, as if D&D needed shills.

Makes you look appropriately ridiculous.

>>48657728
Takes one to know one.

>>48657812
And yet here you are shilling harder for D&D than anyone is shilling for any other system. Most of the posts here are about learning systems in general and even fewer, outside of yours, are espousing any other system as superior.

>>48657710

>It's a big game with tons of different ways to play,

It's also a huge game that requires multiple tomes, that are about the length of the average system, that each have options that run the gamut from actually good to average to unplayable shit.

The average person is not going to sink in the time and effort into researching which options are required to run the campaign that they want to run, when there are hundreds of systems that already build themselves around a particular theme.

D&D runs D&D well, and that's all D&D needs to do.

>>48657840
Nothings wrong with learning a new system, dummy. It's the whole exaggerated lying that you're doing in hopes of scaring people from modifying games like it's a great crime that marks you as an idiot.

And please, don't use this post just to repeat the same old lies again. No one wants to hear how you think people can't do what's been being done since forever and a day. Hell, it being so much easier to modify then to learn a new and not neccesarily better system is the reason why you're down here in the dirt, struggling to scare people away from the easy solutions, just so that your little pet games might have a chance of having their five minutes of fame before the next system steamrolls it out of the way in the endless publishing cycle.

>>48657780

If I wanted to run a CoC esque campaign based around a party researching eldritch abominations, which system should I use?

D&D with variant rules or CoC?

>>48657780
Cute strawman fallacy. You have first to substantiate the following claim of yours:
>It's a big game with tons of different ways to play
My counter-claim to this is:
>No, it does NOT have tons of different ways to play it in a satisfying manner.
I have, adding a reasonable caveat, refuted your claim, in other words, and now the burden of proof is on you.

Please demonstrate that D&D-variants can produce good games, geared to different playstyles. And still be D&D.

ITT: Saying DnD can't do everything is lying and misinformation only spread by shitty shills who can't even name the system they're shilling and thus likely to be out of a job soon

>>48657967
You honestly think just saying "nuh uh" and relying on a subjective interpretation of "satisfying" counts as a counter claim?

Go home. You're drunk. Stop demanding people to take you seriously when you're just stumbling over yourself.

File: Idon'tevenplaythirdedition.jpg (103KB, 940x394px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 940x394px

>>48657963

Are you that same idiot that's been appearing in every other thread shutting down any criticism of 3.X by claiming that people are being "petty" or some shit?

Because if you are, it would certainly explain a lot.

>>48657812
Yeah, you're trying to sell people that they only need to D&D. I am telling them: try other games and compare with the D&D experience. Your advise is geared to keep them ignorant. Mine is geared towards making them more knowledgeable about the hobby as a whole.

You are like theists who tell other believers to never listen to another religion's doctrine. I am telling people to get broad knowledge and to compare.

Wow, more "Damage Control" of me. Topkek.

>>48657963
But I am not against modifying systems. I may question whether the average D&D homebrew attempt at a certain playstyle is as good as an established professional product but that's a whole new issue. Even ignoring the different levels of professionalism, no D&D-variant has ever out-Vampired Vampire, out-Shadowrunned Shadowrun or out-Cthulhu'd Cthulhu.

Because to do so, you'd have to change D20 so much that it would bear only shallow resemblance to D&D.

>>48658004

>ITT: Another thread derailed for claiming that D&D isn't perfect.

FTFY

>>48658024
Well, nobody would ever claim that D&D cannot be customized for different playstyle. OF COURSE, the debate must instead be about whether what can come out of that can be both
a) good
b) still bears enough resemblance to D&D to be called D&D.

ONLY if both conditions are satisfied one can claim that there are viable D&D-variants that cater to different playstyles.

>>48658075
>ITT: another thread derailed for claiming d&d isn't perfect for all campaign ideas and play styles you might ever want.
FTFY.

Example.

D&D for call of cthulhu.

Sure , I *could* start with d&d, cap hp at level 2 or 3, give way more skill points, uncap skill ranks by level, and implement a hard cap of 5 or 6 ranks. Then find and choose choose or homebrew modern equipment rules and implement a sanity score. Use armor as DR, Drop classes entirely, and Rewrite character creation rules to be point-buy instead of class based.
Could that hack play a call of cthulhu game?
Sure .
Would it be work as well as call of cthulhu? No.
Would it be easier than picking up a call of cthulhu book and just reading the damn thing? No again.

>>48658364
Well, every setting can be given a D20 interpretation. Nobody doubts that. You can run for any setting a roll high D20-based game with levels, BAB, AC, Feats and attributes in the 1 to 20+ range. Absolutely. But that's not a very profund claim; it's obviously so.

The question is if the result is any good and worth the effort of shoe-horing it into the above d20 corset for the sake of muh vague familiarity.
If it's any good the end result will be so different from D&D-any-edition that it's like learning a new ruleset anyway. Knowledge of the various D&D builds won't help you with CoC-D&D, for example. it would have different, non-Vancian magic.

>>48658662
I suppose.

But your knowledge of fire game mechanics still carries over.

Grapple still works the same way, etc.

I've never seen anyone who likes d&d hack it far enough that it would actually work well for another genre like CoC, but it's totally doable.

Whether the end result is easier or better to achieve by hacking d&d or by picking up an rpg already designed for it? That's going to spend on how far it needs to be mechanically from d&d and how much material is missing or insufficient from what d&d includes for what you want to run.

I will say: this idea is basically what gurps is built around. There's enough optional mechanics that you can run basically anything from d&d to coc to star trek.

>>48646943

There's a lot to parse if you haven't played 3.5 and frankly it's not worth it.

>>48658890
And GURPS still hasnt replaced any dedicated systems (CoC, Vampie, Shadowrun, etc.) AND D&D has some negative properties that make it less suitable as a generic system:
-levels
-hit points that are an inseperable mix of meatpoints and divine favor
-AC that is a mix of being hard to hit and hard to wound if hit
-class system instead of free point-buy

If you'd address all those points to make it more generic, you'll end up at d20 GURPS though. No point to that.

>>48636971
Absolutely yes! There's so much more even just in the Fantasy genre you'll have a grand adventure looking around.