This is the official thread for discussing roleplaying systems as rated on the roleplaying wiki page (http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Roleplaying_Systems).
[note]To add your rating, edit the page and insert:
{{UScore|Phoenix|5}} where your name replaces Phoenix, and your rating 1-5 replaces the 5.
Be sure to place this above the {{CBGTotal|title}} which totals everything.[/note]
Since the inception of the CBG we have been discussing what systems works best for our campaigns. As the site was original a migrant from the D&D forums, most early settings were d20-based. But more and more I've seen people branching out.
So share your favorite (or least favorite) gaming system. While your at it, be sure to rate it on the wiki. Doing so is easy (see note).
To start off the discussion, my favorite is The Riddle Steel. As others have said, it's complex, but it's also flavorful and about as realistic as it gets without totally bogging down.
I've also been impressed by what I've seen of 4e, at least in theory. But it seems we have many dissenters on that one here.
And the one I most want to learn: GURPs. Sounds pretty good from what I've seen.
Storytelling System and Star Wars Saga = EPIC.
Is Storytelling White Wolf?
Isn't SW Saga pretty close to 4e? (never played it, but I had heard that)
Are we rating just the system, or the background material (the "official setting" or whatever else) too?
What about non-published systems like Guildschool? Oh and as an aside I updated the OWD section. It was still using the old manual style so I changed it to the scripts.
Has anybody played with the Alpha Omega system? I keep hearing good things from people, but I'm a little mixed with it. Just curious.
Quote from: PhoenixIs Storytelling White Wolf?
Isn't SW Saga pretty close to 4e? (never played it, but I had heard that)
1) Yes
2) Sort of yes
Saga was kind of an intermediate between 3.5 and 4e, so they say... an opportunity for WotC to improve their Star Wars system so that people would want to play things besides Jedi when it came to strength, and to try some new mechanics. That being said, it's not really that close to 4e. You could say the biggest 4e resemblance would be 1) a change to attacks so people aren't letting off 8/round, and 2) the addition of talents so that characters have a new ability pretty much every level.
Quote from: PhoenixIsn't SW Saga pretty close to 4e? (never played it, but I had heard that)
Star Wars Saga Edition is a real mix bag of d20 Modern, D&D 3.5 and the direction 4E was taking.
Things it shares with d20 Modern:
- The way Weapons are listed and how they are organized
- Character classes who have either a talent or a feat at each level
- Emphasizing a small handful of character classes
Things it shares with 4E:
- No iterative attacks (except for TWF, which has a massive negative)
- Standardization of Penalties (-1, -2, -5, -10)
- Diagonal Movement (2, 2, 2 in stead of 1, 2, 1)
- Emphasis on the PC's as the Heroes of the story
- Encounter based Powers
- Simplified races
Things it shares with 3.5:
- Same basic combat system
- Character Classes with 20 Levels
- Prestige Classes
- Encounter based Powers (akin to Tome of Battle)
- Multiclassing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for the systems I enjoy to play... Well there's 3.5, 4E, Star Wars Saga, Story Telling System (Exalted), Legend of the 5 Rings' system and Dark Heresy.
I've checked the wiki and found several systems missing:
* Synergy
* Earthdawn
* Lot5R (original version, not the d20 adaption)
* Fading Suns (also the original system)
* GURPS
* The Dark Eye
(in no particular order; I'm specifically referring to the game systems used by those games and not their implied settings.)
Also, imho there should be a separate section for the various d20 derivates like Revised Star Wars, Everquest d20 (especially EQ2 d20 is very different from standard DnD while still being a d20 game), Babylon 5 d20, and Spycraft.
@Biohazard: another big similarity with 4e is that attacks are resolved with "{Attack} vs {Defense}" instead of the AC/saving throw mechanic from 3[.5].
As an extra bonus for some of us Saga also uses metric.
My current personal favorite is (Unhallowed Metropolis (http://www.newdarkage.net)
A very setting specific system, but the setting is also pretty damn cool.
I have all the Riddle of Steel books, but i find it hard to actually engage my players with the system. The tone of the system is also a bit to feudal/medieval to really mesh with my more exotic taste. That being said, it is a very ingenious system.
In the D20 vein i really like Iron Heroes and hope i can find the time to play it at some point. The rules seem to beckon ideas and to enforce creative character design instead of just serving as trivial templates for stock characters.
I'm really not impressed by GURPS; borrowed the books from a friend and the rules are way to complicated. Rules should have some kind of inherent intuitivity. That being said, the game allows for near-complete creative freedom both for the DM and the player.
Haven't read storyteller yet, but planning on reading up on it so i can play Hunter: the Vigil.
Dark Heresy and Warhammer Fantasy also deserve mention as they are both quite imaginable and well-made and have a good deal of original ideas mechanic-wise.
As with all the ratings pages, by all means add anything that's missing :)
As mentioned on the discussion page, I'm not sure every subsystem of WW needs to be rated separately. I leave that decision to those that have played more of them than I.
@Sparkletwist: I was thinking of rating the system only, at least so far as it is separable of the fluff. Perhaps another page for rating world fluff?
@Nomadic: my inclination is to stick with published systems. But it's a community project, so add what you feel works.
@CC: Yeah, I actually liked WFRP
There are a lot of systems missing, like the latest L5R game (not the OA), Heroes Unlimited, Star Wars Saga, d20 Modern/Future, the WoW RPG (both the d20 and other versions), etc.
Quote from: Cataclysmic Crow[...] I'm really not impressed by GURPS; borrowed the books from a friend and the rules are way to complicated. Rules should have some kind of inherent intuitivity. That being said, the game allows for near-complete creative freedom both for the DM and the player. [...]
Imho GURPS4 did that a lot better than previous editions of the system. GURPS3 was a mess, that's right, but 4th edition did for GURPS almost the same thing 4th edition did for DnD: cleaning up the system, consolidating mechanics, and making it more intuitive - however, the core concepts stayed the same unlike DnD4.
Quote from: PhoenixAs with all the ratings pages, by all means add anything that's missing :)
I'd like to, but I'm currently too lazy to create a new account (haven't used the wiki before :(). Not having a SSO makes computer scientist Ra-Tiel cry. :-/
Quote from: PhoenixAs mentioned on the discussion page, I'm not sure every subsystem of WW needs to be rated separately. I leave that decision to those that have played more of them than I. [...]
The problem is that the mere differentiation "oWoD" <> "nWoD" doesn't suffice imho.
Take M:tA as an example. M:tA 2nd edition was ridiculously overpowered both in terms of mechanics as well as setting concepts (Space fortresses on Pluto? Magical terminators with lazer eyebeams and nano-claws? WTF?! x.) while M:tA 3rd edition was so down-trodden and hostile to mage characters (ascension war lost, avatar storm, paradox suddenly much more dangerous, ...) that these were basically two completely different game in terms of flavor and theme.
Quote from: Elemental_Elf[...] the WoW RPG (both the d20 and other versions) [...]
Wha? :huh: Other versions? What other versions are there? I only know of the d20 variant. :?:
Quote from: Ra-TielQuote from: Elemental_Elf[...] the WoW RPG (both the d20 and other versions) [...]
Wha? :huh: Other versions? What other versions are there? I only know of the d20 variant. :?:
I could have sworn there was a non-d20 version of the WoW RPG... Huh, guess I was wrong =/
Quote from: Ra-TielQuote from: /
[/quoteThere is, it's called WoW online :P
Actually, there are two WC RPGs. One is "WarCraft RPG", which is just DnD 3.0 adaptation and a heavily customized "WoWRPG", compatible mostly with DnD 3.5. I think he referred to those.
My favorite system is the one I'm busy writing.
Quote from: beejazzMy favorite system is the one I'm busy writing.
That's like saying 'My favorite Child is my own!' :P
In general, I think we come to developing our own systems because nothing out there quite suits the needs of our particular settings. From there you either find likeminded players willing to try and continue with it (and help you improve on that system), or you file the system away as a fun project and go back to playing published systems.
As I mentioned earlier, I think it best to stick with rating only published systems, for several reasons. One reason is that for a member developing a system, feedback is more helpful than a numeric rating (and let's be honest, a homebrew that gets ***, that is one that is as good as the average published system, it's a pretty big compliment, even if it doesn't feel that way). But few of us are deeply familiar with many homebrew systems, much less played out entire campaigns with them.
3.5 is also really great, because if you have access to all of the supplemental books with classes and races and magic items and the like, you can build a pretty awesome themed setting. I remember the only Dragon magazine I ever bought had an article about "themed" settings where only specific PrCs would be allowed... "Dead World", "New World", "Demonic Invasion", "Fall of Civilization", "Crusades", etc., and you can extend this to more than just the PrCs. The extent of what the system has to offer makes for a lot of fun and a lot of options.
I guess I always felt the opposite, the versatility in being to adapt to settings was one of the great limitations of (any edition of) D&D. Even if you reject the fluff, the rules have built-in so much implicit fluff, that you have to start coming up with all these house rules to compensate. Those house rules can unbalance the game, so you need other house rules to rebalance.
In the end, I often found it too much trouble to run D&D as anything other than the implied reality of the system.
Which is not to say you can't do any of the variants in tone--a world with more dead/undead is sure possible.
But Crusades? I can't imagine it feeling much like any of the real Crusades, even if you were to disallow or limit magic (which again creates serious balance issues).
Don't get me wrong, D&D does have its strong points. It can be pretty good for what it's good for.
Quote from: PhoenixIn general, I think we come to developing our own systems because nothing out there quite suits the needs of our particular settings. From there you either find likeminded players willing to try and continue with it (and help you improve on that system), or you file the system away as a fun project and go back to playing published systems.
As I mentioned earlier, I think it best to stick with rating only published systems, for several reasons. [/quote]
I agree, but once I've published it and run a few play by posts... what then?
[blockquote=Phoenix]But Crusades? I can't imagine it feeling much like any of the real Crusades, even if you were to disallow or limit magic (which again creates serious balance issues).[/blockquote]
Well, the Crusades theme was more of a general "religious/inter-culture warfare" thing - lots of knightly and priestly PrCs.
I guess that's a fair argument against the system. I always just felt that a very flexible system used with a little sacrifice was easier for everyone to get into using than a very specialized one.
Quote from: PhoenixI guess I always felt the opposite, the versatility in being to adapt to settings was one of the great limitations of (any edition of) D&D. Even if you reject the fluff, the rules have built-in so much implicit fluff, that you have to start coming up with all these house rules to compensate. Those house rules can unbalance the game, so you need other house rules to rebalance.
Even WotC's much flaunted Living campaigns have a horde of house rules. So, like the old saying goes, you aren't playing D&D right unless you have a list of house rules.
Quote from: beejazzQuote from: PhoenixIn general, I think we come to developing our own systems because nothing out there quite suits the needs of our particular settings. From there you either find likeminded players willing to try and continue with it (and help you improve on that system), or you file the system away as a fun project and go back to playing published systems.
Haha :morons: , but I qualified (and therefore weakened) my statement with "in general," whereby you cannot disagree via a single counterexample. So you DO agree. Haha! :drunk:
(Also I didn't say anything about reactions against failed systems, though I could understand making the inference.)
And for a more sensible comment, I too have sometimes designed for that reason (the first, not to publish)--it is an interesting intellectual puzzle. In fact, I only got away from it because I felt I needed to direct my creative time towards endeavors I actually intended to publish one day.
I wish you all the best in publishing it. Some Indy systems are some of my favorite (TRoS, The Burning Wheel), so it can get out there. You just need a lot of word of mouth.
well, based on a few posts here and basic fairness...
One should not review one's own system. It is, as was so rightfully said, like french-kissing your grandmother...No, I mean, like rating your own child. Sorry, Answering too many questions in too many places all at once. But really, a system you create to solve the problems of your own setting will answer most issues for you.
This should also take care of the question of whether it should be rated or not. If other people are rating it, then it counts.
And BTW, Bird of Fire, now you have me looking at the crusades....
Fudge, Fudge, and moar Fudge (http://www.fudgerpg.com/files/pdf/fudge_1995.pdf)! (Pimping it at every conceivable opportunity)
Also, Riddle of Steel. Currently attempting a Debate mechanic to rival its combat mechanic, which will be friggin' monolithic, futile, and totally sweet.
Of course not so suitable for our world building needs, but has any of you had experiences, probably one-shot sessions, with humorous systems?
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowOf course not so suitable for our world building needs, but has any of you had experiences, probably one-shot sessions, with humorous systems?
Published no, but I helped set up and run a variant of DnD 3.5e that was all about mocking and making fun of pop culture, gaming, the stupidity of humanity, oh and DnD itself as well.
Quote from: NomadicPublished no, but I helped set up and run a variant of DnD 3.5e that was all about mocking and making fun of pop culture, gaming, the stupidity of humanity, oh and DnD itself as well.
Doesn't everyone do one of these at some point or other? :P :D
I think most of the campaigns i have played in were like that. I'm not sure whether that is a bad or a good thing ^^
Humorous Systems...
Discworld HERO games.
The system wasn't amusing, but the system certainly facilitated the fun style.
I have recently stumbled over HOL, which i mentioned in the tavern as well. I'm not sure exactly how playable it is, but the rules are goddamn funny. The entire rulebook (as well as the single supplement) are handwritten, and basically just make fun of games and humans.
Other than that, i have played "Everyone is John" where you play voices in a guy called John's head, and i have the rules for "killing puppies for satan" (self-explanatory) and Amerikkka (America divided into states of different extremisms, like Greater Seattle where the wannabe vampires live together with the environmentalists or California with their soccer mom cavalry). Haven't tried those though.
I used to be very enamored of Mutants&Masterminds because it gave me rules that then let me build my own races/creatures. Now I'm finding that occasionally it doesn't have enough definition in some areas, is too rigid in others, and is maybe a bit more complicated that my favored system should be. I kinda like Cartoon Action Hour: Season 2 for being more freeform in traits (while still having more fiddly bits than some), but it still feels like it's missing something.
I may just be growing away from systems into stories.
Had the chance to get some real playing/running 4e experience. I enjoyed it. Definitely easier to build adventures, too, even never having run it before.