Roleplaying Systems

[Kalontas]

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.

[beejazz]

My favorite system is the one I'm busy writing.

[Elemental_Elf]

My favorite system is the one I'm busy writing.

That's like saying 'My favorite Child is my own!' :P

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

[Biohazard]

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.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

[beejazz]

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. [/quote]
I agree, but once I've published it and run a few play by posts... what then?

[Biohazard]

[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.

[Elemental_Elf]

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.

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.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

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.

[LordVreeg]

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....

[SA]

Fudge, Fudge, and moar Fudge! (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.

[Superfluous Crow]

Of course not so suitable for our world building needs, but has any of you had experiences, probably one-shot sessions, with humorous systems?

[Nomadic]

Of 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.

[sparkletwist]

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.

Doesn't everyone do one of these at some point or other? :P :D