Do you prefer crunchy or light? Something in-between?
Do you like "rule-of-cool" games, or "logic-based" ones?
What is your favorite system, the one you keep coming back to?
Expanded reasoning appreciated.
>pls respond
>>47114507
Gurps
It's a game grounded in physics tests and extensive iterative playtesting. Very fair and logical.
Since I've started using it I haven't found another I've preferred to use instead, for any genre.
>>47114963
I'm a bit of a GURPSfriend myself. Still curious about the choices of others. I've been mulling over giving Fate Core a shot, but it still doesn't sit quite right with me in some ways.
Crunchy keeps the game focused. So it's useful when you got newbies or people that wander off the plot a lot, but IMO there's no reason to use it out of those situations. You just have to deal with a lot of feats and skills and whatever that ultimately only clutter the game.
There's some systems that meet in a nice place in the middle, tho. Like CoC and Pendragon.
(I also can't stand GURPS. It's the crunchiest of the crunch)
Savage worlds. Very generic , good flavorful mechsnics but easy to customize. Handles battles quick and easy. Trying to make a similar hombrew. SW has many issues but imo I st the best generic system out there for my tastes. GUrps is also cool as fuck. FAtE is also nice but has too many rules but the core concepts I enjoy
My goal and belief in game design is that you always try to reduce mechanics for simplicity but achieve sufficient crunch to reinforce the elements of the setting.
Problematically, it means I like Fate's skill system, dice distribution, and Aspects, but some of the combat could use some more specifics and less floaty-whatever justification for actions (for more "gamist" elements, I guess you'd call it). That said, I like rule-of-cool in most scenarios but would temper it with logic in combat itself.
I like crunchy systems that let me play them "light" up until I need to drill down on something, at which point they give me all the tools I need to do so and more.
I guess what I'm saying isGURPS
>>47114507
to me
Simplicity is elegance and brevity is the soul of wit
>>47118516
So... Risus?
>>47120051
yeah fucking risus is always good
>>47121180
I can respect that.
>>47114507
Hard choice. Between 2e because nostalgia and Dungeon World because it pisses off spergs.
>>47114963
I like GURPS in principle but lift more concepts from it than I play it.
GIVE DICE POOLS AND TARGET NUMBERS!!!!!
SR3 was an old favourite.
>>47114507
I am going to end up favoring rules-light, open, possibly narrative rulesets over others.
The reason is simply because such systems can run a wide variety of games and are easier to do that most other systems. Sure, I love some Burning Wheel as much as Fate/FUDGE, but BW is really only going to run a specific category of games. I would need to make a large amount of content to run a BW game of mouse-riding fairy characters... or I could just run Fate, which could probably do it immediately or function very well with a bit of FUDGE tweaking.
>>47114507
I like both, and as such enjoy games that are flexible and crunchy. I want a game with values and rules for most things that happen, but that allows me to easily customize for the story I am telling.
My all time favorite game is Mythras (formerly RuneQuest 6). A "realistic" abstraction of fatigue and damage, magic that scales from 0-hero, amazing combat (even with firearms), classless, character driven, and BRP has a lot of material to crib from if I want something different.
>>47114507
Rules-light. Trying to learn and play somebody else's heavy rules is difficult, time consuming, and sure to adversely effect play for a long time until you become very proficient. Most rules-heavy systems are striving for a greater level of realism / verisimilitude but I don't know that I've ever seen a game like that where the rules didn't at least occasionally produce ridiculous results that required the GM to improvise in order to preserve the sense of realism / verisimilitude. And at that point, why the fuck are you troubling yourself with the heavy rules in the first place. They had one job to do...
With that said, I'm a firm believer that everybody should personalize and build upon the foundations of the game they're playing. So in the end, whatever rules-light game I start out with is destined to become rules-medium. But everybody knows shit by heart because the original rules were easy to grasp and remember, and they get built upon piece by piece.
I love Strike! for giving 0 fucks about simulationism/realism and just trying to make a fun game instead which doesn't get in the way of just having some random fun.
Also like the modular design (which is good, because you honestly are better off with just bolting the better modules on top of FAE).
>>47127762
>0 fucks
This is honestly why D&D needs 2 editions again - the 4e/13th Age/Strike! just a game out of combat just needs the bare minimum structure for roleplay (I.e. rules are mostly for combat), and the "real D&D" that has more rules for everything but insists it has more narrative weight (like 5e ideally, but 3.pf has ruined a huge amount of players).
Sort of like Basic vs AD&D. The D&D name is just for the marketing.
>>47127762
>FAE
