>>43796866

i liked Exalted's flair for "crunchy as shit yet rewards players actually roleplaying"

plus there's actually statistic values applied to things characters care for! so you can really turn battle tides, either arguments or fights, by pinning said values.

Threatening a man's wife is a great way to invoke a feeling of hatred toward you that will blind their ability to act rationally, for example.

Or, as a good liar, you can imply someone means his wife ill harm and must be stopped, so they'd redirect said hatred toward your target. It's fun times.

But if you can't get your head around FATE, aka "more points and i win without question: the system," Exalted might be sort of impossible, friend

>>43797265

bonus round: the default power scale for every single player Exalted is "the absolute biggest baddest motherfucker this side of the continent, utterly unmatched in skill in what they're good at" AT LEVEL 1

it's a game where you cruise through all challenges until something really fucking legendary appears. That might be the one time you fail.

So your munchkin players will be so gratified in their ability to destroy entire armies in fair combat that they probably won't even notice certain things are more broken than others.

>>43796866
With Savage Worlds, it's normally not that difficult to circumvent a power gamer's min-maxing. Aside from not making everything about direct combat, if somebody is strong in melee, you have a bunch of people shoot at him (where you can't just build up your parry to protect you; you can even have some enemies take a round to aim if necessary, or blindside him with unexpected area effect attacks) and just generally use tactics against him in particular (since it should be obvious that he's the real threat in the party once combat gets going)--shoot from cover, draw him into an ambush, or just plain gang up on him.

But to address your question, what you're asking for is very difficult as seem to want mechanics that cater to your powergamer and let him be a real badass, but without being too powerful, while also being narrativist by mechanical design (rather than just GM fiat). Honestly, my solution would be to go for a rules-light game where you can give the badass a statistical advantage (high combat stats) without being able to exploit a bunch of loopholes, and leave yourself free to improv your way around his strengths if necessary (by giving the enemies situational bonuses and so forth). And, of course, with a rules-light system, you don't really have any mechanics to get in the way of your role-playing social interactions (if you feel a roll is necessary, just make it an attribute check with whatever modifier you think is appropriate, or just decide based on a character's background and stats what you feel like his percentage of success should be, and then roll against that percentage).

It's more the terminology of FATE that I dislike, creating aspects on stuff, consequences and shit like that just gives me headaches on-par with Shadowrun chargen without Chummer.

Arguments also don't happen much in our playgroup; diplomacy is usually done via Just Killing Until We Get What We Want, or failing that, irresistible toxins.

My logic kinda goes like this:
>Your favourite system (d10 Storyteller) - why not D6 System?
>D6 System - why not just play Shadowrun?
>d20 System - why not just play Pathfinder?
>Savage Worlds - powergamer present, why not just play FATE?
>FATE - augh my head

I'm trying to create a scenario where the 'minions' start off being manageable threats, but defeating vast swathes of them isn't a regular occurrence.

>>43797265
I thought Exalted had a reputation for being broken (which seems like it would be the last thing the OP would want given his power gamer).

>>43797538
Honestly, powergamers gonna powergame. DMs need to learn to say 'no.'

>>43796866
Call of Cthulhu to remind them what being mortal is like

or Paranoia to appeal to their munchkin tendencies.

Cant recommend Paronoia enough. Knowing the rules as a player is treason and punishable by execution. you may ask "but what is fun about that?" well sir, the answer of course is fun

>something which blends dice-rolling and RP
why do people do this? trying to mesh them together simply limits the possibilities of both.


>the powergamer broke it almost immediately
Paranoia is definitely the best way to deal with this kind of asshat

>>43797556
>powergamers gonna powergame
Which is why you normally want to keep them away from crunchy, complicated rules that give them a lot to exploit. Take Basic D&D for instance: you can choose a powerful class (elf is pretty ridiculous), but there isn't much to exploit once you've done that. And it's always much harder to say no to official rules that player has an expectation he can use (it feels like you're picking on him and shutting him down), as opposed to just not improvising in his favor in a rules-light game.

>>43797715
I like Paranoia, but it's not really a way to deal with the OP's problems so much as "this is an entirely different genre of games where those problems don't exist". So he won't have those problems if he plays Paranoia, but he's being forced into a type of game he may not want, kind of like fixing a broken magic system by playing a game that doesn't have magic.

>>43797744
>always much harder to say no to official rules

Not really.

Running online game, I come across this shit al the time. I always ask them why they are powergaming. I have people answer "cuz I wanna be a god"; 'I want to become the BBEG"; "I wanna be the very best that no one ever was" ect

What I have concluded is that these people only do what they do cuz
1) They are constantly being kicked out of games, so they spend more time theory crafting than actually playing
2) their DM's of the pst dont have the testicular fortitude to simple say no

>>43797802
>it's not really a way to deal with the OP's problems so much as "this is an entirely different genre of games where those problems don't exist"

Isnt that EXACTLY what OP is looking for tho?

The thread is called "Choosing a system"

>he's being forced into a type of game he may not want
I have never met a single person who has played Paranoia that hasnt wanted to play more. Also, how can it not be the kind of game you want when you can luiterally make up "rules" as you go

experimenting with systems like this is the perfect way to get players to think differently, which is eactly what OP was asking for

>>43797847
If somebody is being an absolute faggot, sure. But with rule heavy systems, it's often easy to power game without much effort, not by using some crazy conjunction of obscure rules and special situations, but by employing simple combinations of common things and/or pumping a few basic stats up really high. And at the point you start denying stuff like that, you're basically invalidating the system and should really be playing something else.

OP here.

In reality, I have three different game ideas.
>Huge mecha, a la Pacific Rim (but not Gurren Lagann, despite the powergamer's cries)
>Power Rangers/Kamen Rider type deal
>Something along the lines of Sundered Skies

and the players at large want official systems and everything available, which facilitates the powergamer.

>>43797802
u dont add magic to ur Paranoia games?

A game of Paranoia where the trouble shooters must behave like dnd adventurers and retrive R&D 'artifacts' stole by communist skeletons

your imagination is very small

>>43797899
>The thread is called "Choosing a system"
I think there's a difference between choosing a system and choosing a completely different genre of games. Maybe OP will dig it, I don't know, but like I said, I feel like it sidesteps the problem more than really addressing it. If I'm having an issue with some aspect of a serious game and somebody suggests to play a humorous game instead, that's not really going to satisfy me. Of course, I may be projecting here, as while I enjoy the occasional humorous game, I really want my main campaign to be serious or it won't feel fulfilling to me, like any progress is actually being made.

>>43797902
>If somebody is being an absolute faggot, sure.
hence the term Powergaming.

people who intentionally do it are absolute faggots.

>it's often easy to power game without much effort
I dont think you understand what powergaming is...

>should really be playing something else.
Have you even read the thread? or even just the title?

>>43797915
>and the players at large want official systems and everything available, which facilitates the powergamer.
Try saying no, or at least picking systems without a lot of supplements (or restricting things to the core rules). I mean, it seems like you're basically saying "my players insist on punching me in the face, and it hurts. How do I prevent myself from feeling pain while doing everything I can to accommodate this face-punching?" And when somebody suggests that you wear some kind of protective gear, you respond that your players would think it was a cop out.

Also, what specifically was the issue with Savage Worlds?

>>43798010
>I dont think you understand what powergaming is...
Different people have different standards for what power gaming is, and generally speaking, so-called power gamers aren't really doing anything that crazy or clever. They're merely taking advantage of fairly obvious imbalances in the system.

>>43797986
>completely different genre of games.

So a game that can mimic whatever genre you desire is "a completely different genre"?

Paranoia is not EXCLUSIVELY a comedy game. One of the most fun way to play is with a very dark Orwellian vibe with everything caught in the crushing grip of absolute facism

Ive run Paranoia as a Shadowrun clone, DnD clone, a comedy game, a horror game and a spy game.

I pity your players, you must be a very uncreative DM

>>43798093
>self-justifying powergamer detected

>>43798094
Paranoia's rules have never been all that. Rather, it's the setting and the arbitrary, humorously dictatorial manner in which you're supposed to run it that makes it cool. But if you're no longer being humorous with it, then it becomes a straight-out "dictatorial manner", which is no longer amusing, or really even tolerable.

>>43798110
>self-justifying powergamer detected
That's a pretty strange inversion considering that I'm the one who's advocating more extreme action (avoiding crunchy systems entirely) to address the problem.

>>43798161
parania's rules are 100% optional and subject to change at a moment's notice

you games must be incredibly generic and boring if you think those are the only 2 options lol

>which is no longer amusing, or really even tolerable.

ya, uncreative powergamers tend to have that kneejerk reaction to games they cant powergame in

>>43798245
>parania's rules are 100% optional and subject to change at a moment's notice
So "play this game, but in a different setting, with different rules"?

>>43798336
What is living with autism like?

>>43798053
Pretty much.

Savage Worlds took bloody ages cause redrawing Initiative every round confused everyone in the early-session mook fights, but the big climactic battle was ended abruptly with someone rolling 19 degrees on damaging the main antagonist of the one-shot, killing her instantly. And when the man behind the man was revealed, that happened again.

Basically, SW got annoying because of cards then anticlimactic cause of exploding dice, which made us all go '...huh' as the villains all just die immediately thank you very much for your ineffectual plot.

>>43798405
Limit exploding dice. They can only explode once, or if you want to limit things even more, say that all dice explode with a d4 or maybe a d6. So if you're rolling a d10 and you get max, roll a d4 and add it 10, and you're done. Or hell, just add 2 on a max roll, so a 10 on a d10 becomes a 12.

And as far as initiative goes, don't redraw it. Or better yet, do team initiative. Decide which team is going first and have them draw cards. Only folks who draw red cards (hearts and diamonds) get to go.* Thereafter, there is no initiative to consider. The entire second team acts, then the entire first team, alternating. This system gives you the simplicity of everybody acting at the same time, but without giving the first team to go a huge advantage (since less of them of go)

Or you could just have folks draw cards on the first round and stick to their initiative rank.


*Note, if you want to skip the cards entirely, you could just have folks on the first team try to roll a 4 or more on a d6.

>>43798245
>>43797934
As someone lurking this thread, I could excuse the fact that you call people uncreative for using the system optimized for a specific setting when they want to run that setting, and the fact that you respond to a legitimate argument with actual points by passive-aggressively insinuating the other poster (who actually took time to formulate a decent response) was a power gamer.
I could excuse those, write them off as different people posting, even, if it weren't for the fact that you don't bother to proofread your posts or make the slightest effort to make their spelling or grammar correct. Not only does it make clear that you obviously put as little effort as possible into your posts, but it's just as bad as tripfagging, in that it breaks your anonymity. By intentionally leaving your posts uncorrected, it's clear which posts are yours, and it's just as sickening and special snowflake-y as tripfagging.

The Powered by the Apocalypse engine has no problems.

>>43797915
Use Dungeons: the Dragoning 40k 7th edition

>>43798405
I can't even imagine what it is like to play with people who are too stupid to look at 6 cards and figure out which is the highest number. Are they patients at a mental hospital? You did have them turn in the card after they act, right? So it might be uncertain at the beginning of the round but as it goes on there are less and less cards to look at. I guess they could have a problem with ties but how often could that happen? And why didn't you just step in to tell them the suit order?

>>43797915
This should actually meet your requirements fairly well. Get it and go away.

http://www.wiseturtle.com/products.html

>>43796866
>I want to manage a group of two fundamentally incompatible people
Let me know if you figure this out because I would love to know too.
Then help establish peace in the middle east.

>>43797506
So you want a game that can't be broken by a power gamer, is both narrative and mechanical, and is LESS complicated than Fate?

I don't think there is such a thing.

>>43797512
Sounds to me like you have a pretty basic case of "I don't actually want what I say I want".

Sounds like you actually want to play dungeons and dragons.