I need help. I really wanna try some rp. I have at least two

>>52397077
D&D 5e, starter PDF. It's easy, it's simple, it can be expanded on later. It's currently the best rpg to jump right into.

Alternatively, just run Risus.

File: 1468860496337.jpg (50KB, 468x720px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 468x720px

You can always try a lightweight system like Barbarians of Lemuria, FATE, a DnD retroclone, etc.

And most systems are available as pdfs, so cost probably won't come up. Though if you actually use and like a system, you should shell out for it.

What sort of roleplaying experience are you looking for, senpai?

>>52397148
>What sort of roleplaying experience are you looking for, senpai?

I figure some basic fantasy adventure is a good place to try out the medium.

Also is one DM and two players a bad way to go?

>>52397077
Dungeon World is pretty chill to hop in. Sure, people on /tg/ will boo me for suggesting it, but that doesn't make me wrong.
The focus is on storytelling and imagination, rather than hard mechanics and lots of prep.

>>52397334
Don't follow this man's advice. He's preying on your naivety. Play 5e.

>>52397245
This is just my personal opinion, but do not under any circumstances whatsoever try a fantasy roleplaying game in the D&D/Pathfinder vein first.
They require a large amount of number-crunching, have fluff-crunch disconnects out the ass, reward metagaming, contain few roleplaying cues, work on a videogame mentality and, especially in newer editions, sacrifice a huge amount of setting consistency and rule balance in favor of cramming in as many sparkly races and classes as possible.
Many, many people on here have shared their stories about it before, and I'm just condensing it (though I of course have plenty of personal experiences with it too).
Starting out with "generic fantasy adventure" in the D&D vein cultivates bad habits and a gamist, unrewarding view on roleplaying games. They're mostly clones and ripoffs of each other, and as such have the same flaws of lack of roleplaying hooks, overdependence on game mechanics to define roleplaying elements, jarring fluff-crunch disconnects, a tendency for inter-party balance to be completely shot and a habit of magic classes power-creeping like crazy at higher levels. With a lot of resurrection spells readily available, a lot of setting society glossed over and a lot of races that look cool but are hard to roleplay, they cultivate video-game mindsets.
I will get shit on for this, but try Vampire: the Masquerade. It gives you more tools as a GM to make sure the game doesn't immediately fizzle out, it teaches a healthy balance between GM power and player agency, it encourages aiming for realistic characters, it teaches a sense of consequence, it's not prone to ending in metagaming, it focuses more on storytelling than on game proficiency and it's easier to learn than even 5e D&D.
Sure, some people might call it old or emo, but for fuck's sakes, that doesn't change that it's a good game that places a lot of emphasis on teaching new players what roleplaying is rather than throwing statblocks at them.

>>52397245
>Also is one DM and two players a bad way to go?
Nah, seems good. Maybe one extra players wouldn't hurt, but 4 or 5 players could be hard for your first time.
Also, be open to them, ask for their input, try to figure out how you could make it more fun together.
Don't try to be the all-knowing, all-deciding DM, like some assholes on here pretend they are. You're not, and it's not the best DM-style.

Oh, and schedule your games in advance. Like, at least 4 of them at a time. Possibly biweekly, don't overload them. Trust me on this one.

>>52397245
You should definitely round up a third player. I personally believe that three to four is the sweet spot, with five being preferable to two. Also you shouldn't play DnD. Too dumb and combat heavy. Like just go play Diablo, man. At least Diablo has snappy combat. Don't be afraid of starting with something that isn't DnD. People care too damn much about brand names.

>>52397437
I was expecting you.
>Play 5e
>D&D all day everyday

Don't get pulled in by the hype OP. D&D is one particular style of game, that involves a lot number-crunching. Like >>52397466 is saying.

I'm merely suggesting Dungeon World, but you're free to play whatever. I'm just suggesting not-D&D even harder. I think you'll first have to start with the roleplaying, the improvisation and the imagination. D&D is not the starting game for that.

>>52397466
And just as a side note, don't use 20th Anniversary, but Revised.
20th has a note early in the book about how it's explicitly not intended to be used by beginners and is a revised reference book for older players, but it's easy to miss. On top of that, it has a lack of fluff and good art that makes the setting feel cheap and shallow, and it reveals the metaplot right away and kills the sense of tension that new players should have.

>>52397245
>Also is one DM and two players a bad way to go?

This moooostly depends on the system. 2 players CAN be kinda thin for some systems (DnD 3 or 4, Pathfinder) but others it will work fine for (Dogs in the Vineyard, Barbarians of Lemuria, Fate, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, DnD 5).

If basic fantasy is what you're looking for, I suggest the DnD 5 starter (free and simple), Dungeon Slayers (a pseudo-retroclone), FATE (a generic system, but works fine for fantasy), or Barbarians of Lemuria (Conan-esque swords and sorcery).

I strongly recommend you avoid Pathfinder or any DnD after 2 and before 5.