The Campaign Builder's Guild

So, first of all, since this is my first post around here I thought I'd saa HI!

Now onto the actual post :)

I was introduced to Table-top RPG's through D&D 3e and since then I've gone through 3e, 3.5, Pathfinder, 4e and I've slowly been reading up on other systems. It's a bit difficult since the d20 system was my first system and honestly, still my favorite.

But what I really wanted to know is this, what systems do you prefer to use, even if it's a separate system for different types of games, and why do you like them. For a while now I've been "testing the waters" with other systems to see what I liked, and I figured I'd see what others experiences have been like.

For me, I still prefer 3.x/Pathfinder to anything, playing (and GMing) a version of d20 for 10 straight years it's just become natural for me. After this long I can usually augment the system to any setting I want to play (and I have fun doing it). It just has a "feeling" when I'm playing that nothing else has matched, but that's just personal preference, no single reason sets it apart for me.

When 4e came out I was really exciting, that died away quickly (a good system, just not for me). So I eventually started using it when my group needed a quick on-the-fly game. That was until I discovered Savage Worlds which has quickly grown on me.  In fact, it was Savage Worlds that got me into the "classless" style my group has been using.

One thing I've become picky about in my games now is the class system. I like to have classes as templates. So yeah I CAN pick a Bard or Psion for my character, OR I can pick and choose options (like Savage Worlds) and "become my own class".

So how about all of you? What is your favorite system? What is your "old faithful" system? The one you can always return to? Are there specific mechanics that really draw you in, or are you like me, it has to "feel" right over all else?

Well then, glad to be here  :)

Peace,
Pyre

Firstly, welcome to the CBG!

I am interested in what people have to say on this topic, but I'm afraid I can't really add much myself - except for one game I ran in Riddle of Steel, I've only ever played 2nd and 3rd ed D&D.  I preferred 3rd to 2nd primarily because the rules were more standardized, meaning that I (as the eternal DM) didn't need to spend so much time searching for special variant rules and exceptions, but I don't really have strong opinions about systems because I haven't been exposed to very many.  I might check out Savage Worlds on your advice, though, as the classless idea does appeal to me.

Thanks for the welcome!

First of all, I'd highly recommend checking out Savage Worlds. It's not an overly complicated rule set like I usually find appealing, but it has really grown on me. It fits a lot of different styles and it's really simple. I've found Savage Worlds to be my baseline when working on changing d20 for my group.

Secondly I'm in the same boat as you, if you count the variations on d20 (3.x/Pathfinder/True20) as one overall system I've only really played/GM-ed in 3 systems. But I've been reading up on a lot lately. It's really gotten me interested. So hopefully peoples experiences will help me broaden my horizon :)

Peace,
Pyre

Welcome to the community, PB. And thanks for a fun and thought-provoking question.

As a disclaimer: I am not "system-monogamous". I like investigating new systems and trying them out and tinkering with them, but I can't decide on just one favorite. (Nor do I think you should have to-- different systems have different strengths, and variety is fun.)

Sometimes I like "smaller" systems, the sort where you can fit the entirety of the rules on a single sheet of paper. These appeal because there's such a low barrier to entry-- it's easy to teach such a game to your group-- and because the system tends to "get out of the way" during play. More rarely, I prefer "heavier" systems, with hefty bludgeon-ready tomes and a fastidious level of detail you can really obsess over. Generally I try to find some sort of middle path.

I also think that for this question, you almost have to draw a distinction between "all-purpose" systems like d20 or FATE or Savage Worlds, which are generic enough to theoretically run any kind of game you like, and games that are tailored to match a single kind of theme/setting, like Dogs In The Vineyard or Don't Rest Your Head or Polaris. This latter category is interesting because of the way these games can take a core theme and also turn it into a core gameplay element (the way Exhaustion and Madness are two of your key stats in DRYH, a game about, well, exhaustion and madness). They tend to be very "tight" games, in that their gameplay/mechanics and their feel/tone/world/narrative/etc. are closely linked (and more to the point, that tone comes across naturally through gameplay because it has to), but it's harder to adapt them to run something different than the original intent, so groups tend to play a game or two and move on to something else. (You often see groups that say "we play d20 exclusively" or whatever, but rarely "we play Dogs In The Vineyard exclusively", and I think this says less about the quality of either game than it does about their scope.)

So. What were we talking about again?

Right, I like different games for different moods and reasons, but there are still some things I look for. For obvious reasons, I'm going to have to keep these as generic as possible.

I like systems that give players enough rope to hang themselves with.
I love it when a game reaches a decision point that hinges not upon "can I do [X]?" but rather "should I do [X]?" I like giving characters power to make big changes to their world, and making their decisions on the use of that power have weighty consequences. I think moral dilemmas are more interesting to confront in a game than monsters.

I like systems with dramatic elements.
This is to say, dramatic in the sense of "concerned with internal/emotional goals" as opposed to procedural: "concerned with external/practical goals". I like it when a game allows space for things like conquering a phobia, reconciling with an estranged sibling, relearning how to trust, defending convictions, or picking up the pieces after heartbreak. I think that these emotional triumphs and tragedies have massive and generally untapped (by games) power to make audiences care about characters, and it's rare to see games even try to handle these elements. Vincent Baker is generally very good at this sort of thing, arranging a system so that confrontations have lasting effects on characters and their relationships, regardless of their outcomes.

I could spend pages and pages on this, so I'm going to make the deliberate decision to stop myself now, and move on.

I like systems that put (a little bit of) narrative control in the hands of players.
I am referring to the power traditionally wielded exclusively by the GM. I think giving some of this authority to players helps move them farther away from being passive story recipients and closer toward being active story co-authors. This power-sharing can be overt (as in FATE's ability for characters to make their own new declarations about the world which then become true), or less so (as in Burning Wheel's practice of having each character write three Beliefs, and then making the whole game revolve around those beliefs).

I like systems with a little bit of resource management.
This, I guess, is proof I'm not all about "story, story, story" to the exclusion of all else. I do like a little strategic hoarding/squandering of points or tokens from time to time. I think this can be a pretty fun element in games! (And if the resources in the system are less abstract and more direct representations of some kind of in-world concept, it can also serve as a potent tangible reinforcement for a lot of this other crap I'm talking about.)

I like systems with some constraints on players' choices.
That is, I think a system should have ways to put Baby in a corner, because that's when people's true colors come out. I like it when a system has some ways to force a choice, or a predicament, or to otherwise occasionally cause players to behave within certain agreed-upon constraints. I think this often produces some compelling situations and outcomes, and (compared to the traditional "do whatever you want [unless you are dead]" model) really adds some serious consequences to outcomes other than death, because death's no longer the only way to have your options limited.

I like systems that represent the tone of the game.
This is cheating, because it's a catchall generality that sums up a lot of stuff I've already said. The ugly truth is that there are already a million systems out there that work on basically identical principles: here's a sheet that defines what you're good at, roll dice when you try to do something, dice and stats jointly determine whether you are successful at that thing. That's just a physics engine. Unless it has something to distinguish itself from the pack of similar physics engines, why should I use it for a game I want to run? If I can match some sort of element from the game I'm trying to run to the system I'm considering to run it in, I'm much more likely to run with it-- which means, generic all-purpose system designers, that it behooves you to give your systems some personality above and beyond "this is a really excellent physics engine."

Unfortunately, I've typed too many words and said too little in the process. I'm going to end this post but watch this thread, and hopefully get entangled in some more interesting dialogue on some of these issues.

Hello, Pyre! Welcome to the boards.

I also started my career in tabletop gaming with DnD (3.5 for me however). However, I always felt that DnD never actually made me feel like I was playing an incredible hero out of a fantasy novel though. I always had to make my GM want to beat me with a hammer because of my convoluted ideas and actions to make the game feel that awesome. I only thank my lucky stars that I roll dice on the high end of the spread more often than not and that my good luck comes out more when I need it.

Quite frankly though, I'm in a very similar boat as Luminous. I really love systems that are character driven and story oriented with lots of stuff that involves character choices and morality. To that end, I'll go one step further and say that, out of the half dozen core systems (d20 in another 6 or 7 forms, WoD d10, Dogs in the Vineyard, Primetime Adventures, etc) I've played with or run games in, I like the FATE system best. It's versatile, character driven, story oriented, and has just the right amount of resource management to make me a happy camper.

That being said, there are plenty of awful derivations of FATE. Burning Wheel is a monstrosity of a system that requires a copy of the rules for every player in order for it to be a playable game (at least before you've dedicated the 500 pages of text to memory). Spirit of the Century is hilarious, but it doesn't have a lot (for me anyway) left after that. The Dresden RPG is a little difficult to play, mechanically speaking, just because there's a lot that's left up to the players and GM to decide (although that's something that I DO actually like, some people don't like having that kind of power over their systems).

Anyway, rambling done. FATE is a great system. I'd use it for almost everything.

I don't have too much to say that LC didn't already just say. To accentuate my desires for a system, I like a system that lets you do everything the world should let you do. I also like a system that my players are familiar with.

I have tried to go away from D&D on several occasions, but something keeps drawing me back. I just like the game; it's easy for me to fiddle with, it's easy for my players to play, and it's part of our gaming vernacular. While I prefer 4E D&D over 3E, mostly because I primarily DM and 4E is easier for me to run, I do recognize how it changed the terms.

Even with a perfect system, I'd probably still fiddle with it, so I like systems with fiddly bits.

SabrWolf, if you want to talk more about Primetime Adventures, I'm curious about that. I've heard it's good, but I know almost nothing about it.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
I like systems that give players enough rope to hang themselves with.

This made me chuckle and I also agree with the point behind this statement. I want my players to be able to think outside the box. The issue I always had with DnD was that it encouraged players to just stand there and hit the bad guy with a sword until he died. It's an interesting and fun box but it's one that is very hard to break out of within the system. I don't want the players to limit themselves to the standard turn to turn fare (I attack him... ok roll to hit... hit!... ok roll damage... *rolls*... ok now it's his turn...). I want players maneuvering and using the terrain and each other to their advantage. It's awesome when a player cuts a rope and brings a chandelier crashing down on his enemies head and it's nail bitingly scary when they misjudge the terrain and the chandelier crashes through the floor which starts collapsing under them (oops). I also want more teamwork. In DnD players tend to focus on themselves. The DnD aid another option is weak at best and there's little in the way of things that demand working together. That's a whole other can of worms though and something that requires careful refinement.

It's funny that you should quote that point to make that specific point of your own about D&D, Nomadic.

My original draft of that hella-long post (yes, I do multiple drafts of stuff before posting, stop laughing at me) included a bit about D&D in that paragraph which I originally cut because it seemed like an unnecessary digression.

But the point was that, even though your level goes up in D&D, the difficulty of your challenges goes up at an equal rate, so that relatively speaking, you're not actually getting more "powerful". Your numbers get bigger and your options get more numerous, but you're still facing the same sorts of challenges because they've gotten more formidable the same way you have done. At the end of the day, the question is always "can I beat the bad guy(s) in battle or not?"

The system I generally use is a diceless one of my own invention. It's simple, its rules are intimately entwined with the setting (the skill levels evoke its metaphysics, and the skills themselves demand character histories, narrative threads, enemies, allies and long lost loves) and it requires players who are willing to do practically all of my work for me.

When not abusing players with that megalomaniacal ruleset I adhere obsessively to the principle that System Does Matter. Rules for the things that need them, and the right rules, and no more or less than those.

First of all, thanks for all the replies and the welcomes :D

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
I like systems that give players enough rope to hang themselves with.
I love it when a game reaches a decision point that hinges not upon "can I do [X]?" but rather "should I do [X]?" I like giving characters power to make big changes to their world, and making their decisions on the use of that power have weighty consequences. I think moral dilemmas are more interesting to confront in a game than monsters.

This is one of the ways I always try to GM my games. Make the group think outside the box, never letting them get into a rut :)

Quote from: SabrWolf
Quite frankly though, I'm in a very similar boat as Luminous. I really love systems that are character driven and story oriented with lots of stuff that involves character choices and morality. To that end, I'll go one step further and say that, out of the half dozen core systems (d20 in another 6 or 7 forms, WoD d10, Dogs in the Vineyard, Primetime Adventures, etc) I've played with or run games in, I like the FATE system best. It's versatile, character driven, story oriented, and has just the right amount of resource management to make me a happy camper.

I've read a lot of good things about FATE, still have yet to play it but I've been trying to read up on it when I can. It's definitely one of the systems on my "To-try list"

Quote from: Xeviat
I don't have too much to say that LC didn't already just say. To accentuate my desires for a system, I like a system that lets you do everything the world should let you do. I also like a system that my players are familiar with.

I have tried to go away from D&D on several occasions, but something keeps drawing me back. I just like the game; it's easy for me to fiddle with, it's easy for my players to play, and it's part of our gaming vernacular. While I prefer 4E D&D over 3E, mostly because I primarily DM and 4E is easier for me to run, I do recognize how it changed the terms.

Even with a perfect system, I'd probably still fiddle with it, so I like systems with fiddly bits.

This pretty much sums it up for me, I like a system I can twist and bend into whatever I want. Since I'm so used to d20 that's been my main source for "fiddly bit" systems :D I always like my system to be somewhat of a frame for the modifications I'll usually end up doing anyways!

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
I like systems that give players enough rope to hang themselves with.

This made me chuckle and I also agree with the point behind this statement. I want my players to be able to think outside the box. The issue I always had with DnD was that it encouraged players to just stand there and hit the bad guy with a sword until he died. It's an interesting and fun box but it's one that is very hard to break out of within the system. I don't want the players to limit themselves to the standard turn to turn fare (I attack him... ok roll to hit... hit!... ok roll damage... *rolls*... ok now it's his turn...). I want players maneuvering and using the terrain and each other to their advantage. It's awesome when a player cuts a rope and brings a chandelier crashing down on his enemies head and it's nail bitingly scary when they misjudge the terrain and the chandelier crashes through the floor which starts collapsing under them (oops). I also want more teamwork. In DnD players tend to focus on themselves. The DnD aid another option is weak at best and there's little in the way of things that demand working together. That's a whole other can of worms though and something that requires careful refinement.

Teamwork was something I always had difficulty in DnD. I think that's why I like looking through as many systems as I can. By the time I'm done I end up with something akin to Frankenstein's monster, a bit of this, a bit of that, add a jolt and you're good to go.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
It's funny that you should quote that point to make that specific point of your own about D&D, Nomadic.

My original draft of that hella-long post (yes, I do multiple drafts of stuff before posting, stop laughing at me) included a bit about D&D in that paragraph which I originally cut because it seemed like an unnecessary digression.

But the point was that, even though your level goes up in D&D, the difficulty of your challenges goes up at an equal rate, so that relatively speaking, you're not actually getting more "powerful". Your numbers get bigger and your options get more numerous, but you're still facing the same sorts of challenges because they've gotten more formidable the same way you have done. At the end of the day, the question is always "can I beat the bad guy(s) in battle or not?"

Couldn't agree more, I'm not a fan of the whole "I leveled up...all my numbers". While a GM can get around issues like that...sometimes you don't have the option of a GM that CAN get around those issues. One of the systems I loved was a sub-system for d20 from Legends of Sorcery (or True Sorcery, can't remember). Skill based magic. As you gain power you gain more powerful spells but it's not spell slots, so a 9th level spell isn't automatically as easy to cast at level 17 as it is at 20. Not a perfect solution but it got my brain working so I could tweak my own system a little more!

Quote from: Zoetrope
When not abusing players with that megalomaniacal ruleset I adhere obsessively to the principle that System Does Matter. Rules for the things that need them, and the right rules, and no more or less than those.

I think that is a reason why a lot of people start making their own system. You know it contains the rules you need when you need them. In the end you don't have to worry about this rule clashing with this setting theme. It may take some time but in the end I always find it worth the effort.

Quote from: PyrebornI think that is a reason why a lot of people start making their own system. You know it contains the rules you need when you need them. In the end you don't have to worry about this rule clashing with this setting theme. It may take some time but in the end I always find it worth the effort.

Yes.

The reason I dId not reply earlier is that despite owning quite a few systems, I use them for ideas more than anything.  Those who know me know I prefer homebrewing, sometimes from whole cloth.

Vreeg's First Rule.
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."

Corrollary to Vreeg's First Rule.
"The amount of rules given to a certain dimension of an RPG partially dictate what kind of game the rules will create.  If 80% of the rulebook is written about thieves and the underworld, the game that is meant for is thieving.  If 80% of the mechanics are based on combat, the game will revolve around combat. 
Multiply this by 10 if the reward system is based in the same area as the proponderance of rules."

So I look for rulesets that are an accurate interface between the setting and the type of game the GM and players want to play.  I was answering a question on the RPG stack exchange, with some GM trying to play a social-heavy Pathfinder game...and it took a while to make this person understand that maybe they had 'square hole-round peg' syndrome', that they either had to add a series of homebrew rules to change the % of rules dealing with the soscial aspect of the game or find a new system to play in.

Quote from: NomI also want more teamwork. In DnD players tend to focus on themselves. The DnD aid another option is weak at best and there's little in the way of things that demand working together.

That's why I like having additive skill use. Elegant problem solver, though in practise, I often do get a lot of piling on..(I get this image in my haed of moe, larry and curly all trying to open the same trap...)

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: NomI also want more teamwork. In DnD players tend to focus on themselves. The DnD aid another option is weak at best and there's little in the way of things that demand working together.

That's why I like having additive skill use. Elegant problem solver, though in practise, I often do get a lot of piling on..(I get this image in my haed of moe, larry and curly all trying to open the same trap...)

I've found that rules alone cannot maintain teamwork. There's a sort of distancing between players and you generally only find relationships growing from players who have committed to making them grow instead of them just happening naturally. This is true of nearly every setting I've played in to some degree or another. Things tend towards a cold professionalism even when the adversities faced would bond most people closer together. It takes special crafting and deliberate intent by the DM combined with appropriate rules to make that sort of thing happen. For example lightly slipping suggestions to players based on their perceptions.

Let's take one example. In the standard gameplay during a battle if one person gets in a little bit of trouble someone might move to help them but in my experience most people don't worry too much about that. This is in part a rules issue as how HP is handled means that as long as they're above 0 they're ok and if they do drop because of the weakness of the ally system they won't suffer more than maybe a flanking bonus. What if instead we do this:

The battle in the caverns has been fierce, the four adventurers were ambushed and made orderly retreat to a narrow choke point. Forming a loose wall of shields and blades they hold the line as seemingly endless waves of enemies pour through. Fortunately the choke point limits how many may assail them at any time and they are able to cut them down piecemeal. To the far left Ormaraunt, a wizened mercenary who has proven his loyalty time and again is under the fiercest assault. Time and again he has driven back his foes but not without paying for his strikes. Ormaraunt now stands bleeding, his strikes are slower and his shield is not as quick to catch the blows of his opponents. At his side Miala catches a glimpse from her left eye as an attack finally strikes home, a mace slips past his defenses and leaves him lying in agony on the ground as the person who wounds him draws a dagger and moves to cut his throat.

Miala turns to watch this, horror in her eyes. If Ormaraunt falls they will no longer be able to hold the line, enemies will pour past their flank and they will be surrounded and overwhelmed. Furthermore she respects Ormaraunt and feels that she would lose the will to fight if he died. She must not let this happen. All of these thoughts pass in the blink of an eye and Miala acts, charging her foe and skewering him on her sword even as he reaches down to end Ormaraunt. Reaching down she quickly helps him up and the two turn and drive back towards the fight, sticking close together and forcing the enemy to deal with two blades at once. The line holds and the group takes the chance when it arrives to retreat to safety.

This has in it several critical elements:
- The DM let Miala not just catch the event as it was in progress but drove home to her what would happen if she didn't stop it
- This was backed up by penalties for failing to act (terrain/maneuver wise by being surrounded meaning many more enemies could attack them at any time as well as by the shock of losing Ormaraunt and the opening of her flank weakening her will (out of fear and sorrow) and making her vulnerable to the attacks to come)
- Miala didn't have to act, she might have seen that the current threat she was dealing with was the more immediate danger and just hoped that Ormaraunt would be fine. Regardless of what happened though because of the delivery of this information just to her there is a strong chance of feeling guilt for not acting. If she does act there is also a strong chance for thankfulness from Ormaraunt and chances to pull their bond closer together. He knows she has his back and she feels good for saving him.
- When she did act the DM let her break initiative to do something awesome and to encourage good roleplaying (instead of sticking just to the core rules).

In short good teamwork is brought about through a rules system and a DM that encourages it to happen.

Quote from: NomIn short good teamwork is brought about through a rules system and a DM that encourages it to happen

Well the thread is about that; rules systems and our preferences.  Not how to GM.  I am agreeing with You (Toden, oh brave Toden...), and taking it one step foward...the rules heavily determine what type of game one will run and play.  If the rules are there for additive skill use and to enable cooperative play, it is more likely to create said opportunities than a system with less cooperative systems.

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: NomIn short good teamwork is brought about through a rules system and a DM that encourages it to happen

Well the thread is about that; rules systems and our preferences.  Not how to GM.

I'd argue that the rules system is worthless without a DM who can run it effectively.