Tell me your favourite system /tg/
>Why is it good?
>Why is it bad?
>What is the absolute worst thing about it that you just hate?
>What's the weirdest thing about it?
>>47738150
Unknown Armies (3rd edition, specifically)
>Why is it good?
It's got one of the best sanity models in any rpg, with deep mechanical caused by each facet of the sanity guages.
>Why is it bad?
The rules are in an early alpha state so character creation is temporarily confusing as fuck.
>What is the worst thing you hate about it?
There are a few magic schools that have some rules to them that I want to aggressively edit until they work better.
>What is something weird about it?
Your attributes are also basic skills and they can only be changed by succeeding sanity checks.
>>47738150
Call of Cthulhu/Basic Roleplaying
Simple/elegant/does its job.
>>47738150
WHFRP 2nd Edition
>Why is it good?
Super-fluid career system that ties directly into the RP, super-easy to understand rules and a god-tier setting. It's also very easy to integrate homebrew rules and mechanics.
>Why is it bad?
Characters die too quickly, so a lot of the epic "Hell Yeah!" factor is lost.
Combat is also fairly static in the early game when few characters have >1 attacks, dodge blow or powerful magic, so it usually turns into "I aim and attack" over and over again.
>What is the worst thing you hate about it?
FFG scrapped it for overcomplicated bollocks.
>What's the weirdest thing about it?
Players I've hosted seem overly-eager to invest their XP into the Consume Alcohol Skill.
>>47738957
Another weird thing, all generic one-handed weapons like Axes, word and clubs are all counted as "Hand Weapon" in the game, and all have the same rules unless the weapon is best quality and you're using the optional supplement rules.
That's pretty dumb.
Star Wars FFG, I guess
>Why is it good?
It's simple enough, system inspires players to be more creative with their actions, obligation system is great, system can be used for different themed campaings (exploration, combat, investigation, civilian etc.)
I even made campaing not in Star Wars setting without any problems.
>Why is it bad?
There is some balance issues, players can make some stupidly broken things. Also sometime there is lack of good wording.
>What is the absolute worst thing about it that you just hate?
Races are bland in terms of mechanics. Mostly it's bonus to stat, to skill, and boon to some kind of minor check (one advantage to see your own reflection under the fool moon).
>What's the weirdest thing about it?
Vehicle combat, I think. It's deadly, brutal and a little bit random. In many cases it's better idea to run than to fight. In my campaing ships not so durable and I'm not against vehicle combat in this form, but others maybe want to homerule it somehow.
>>47738150
Till now the best campaign I dm'ed was in stars without number, so I guess that's my favourite.
>>47738150
Legend of the Five Rings, 4th edition
>Why is it good?
It has the best dice rolling mechanics I've seen in any tabletop RPG, and the mechanics of the whole game tie wonderfully in to the setting
>Why is it bad
The mechanics are tied way tooo tightly to the setting, you can't really run an L5R game outside of Rokugan, it just doesn't work. Also some advantages and disadvantages are ludicrously unbalanced
>What's the absolute worst thing that you hate about it?
The air ring is way too good compared to the other rings. Poor mr Hida can pretty much never beat mr Kakita in a fight as a result
>What's the weirdest thing about it
The best way to advance is to invest 1 point in a bunch of different skills, or two points in a bunch of different skills if the first point in a skill doesn't count for insight. And getting more skillful at something is never as valuable as just putting more points in base stats, so everyone just becomes jacks of all trades as they gain experience, which might be intentional, but is kind of weird
Have anyone played Unhallowed Metropolis?
It's looks fun on paper, but I couldn't play it yet, so I like to hear someone's opinions on this system.
>>47738150
Savage worlds
>Why is it good?
Versatile as fuck
Easy to teach people or just pick up
Some good supplements out there for even more versatility
A lot of little nuances you can play around with
>Why is it bad?
A lot of people don't like the card initiative, though i personally don't mind.
I do prefer systems that allow you to die from a thousand cuts, savage worlds could not be less of this kind of system. You can walk out of those first 999 cuts without a scratch and then the 1000th turns you into a mist of red.
Some supplements do not know how to make monsters. There's a right way to do something, and there's the permanent loss of die types from a sneak attack way of doing things.
>What is the absolute worst thing about it that you just hate?
That health thing. I've tried messing around with it in the past and came up with something apparently similar to how shadowrun does it, but have never actually used those house rules. Been sitting on them for years.
>What's the weirdest thing about it?
Probably the card initiative, which is why I don't think many people like it. You draw cards highest goes first with reverse alphabetical suits for ties. You can improve your initiative by drawing more cards, or discarding those below a certain value. Though I like it because clubs can be used as an excuse to muck about with the fight (though i prefer clubs of a certain value or less just to limit how often things occur), nearby tree gets hit by lightning at tumbles onto the battlefield, burning floor gives way, etc.
>>47738957
More games need WHFRP's career system.
>>47739730
ALL games need WHFRP's career system.
It's so open and interesting, it's like an infinite oroborus tree of possibility.
Savage Worlds.
>Why is it good?
Only does everything.
>Why is it bad?
Exploding dice have the tendency to one-shot boss enemies.
>What is the absolute worst thing about it that you just hate?
Seriously why the fuck do my player's damage dice explode every fucking time?
>What's the weirdest thing about it?
How easy it was for me to grasp the rules and underlying math that justifies them compared to most systems. By comparison, trying to read the books for Mutants and Masterminds as well as Shadowrun just left me lost in an ocean of bad wording and a format that basically just fucking jumps all over the place.
Anyone else?
Riddle of Steel
>Good
Absolute best medieval combat of any system. Period. Realistic tracking of damage on several metrics that inpact your ability to continue fighting, and wounds that you can feel for the rest of your life.
>Bad
Difficult to run for groups above 4 players due to the depth of the mechanics, character progression is very slow
>Hate
It makes me imagine games where players actually want to roleplay in a deadly world
>Weird
The magic system is actually extremely interesting and not expected in a book endorsed by medieval fighting groups irl
>>47741169
If by all of that you mean mechanically obtuse rule blob that requires hours to do jack all in, and the assumption, neigh the faith that you've actually followed the rules while doing said shit properly. Then yes.
>>47741316
It's actually a fairly simple system and easy to learn if you know someone who already understands it and they can show you.
But yeah, I guess initial learning curve is a negative.
Once you have it games move smoothly though. Absolutely worth it too. One of my favorite tabletop moments was proving how deadly throwing knives could be after everyone told me I was wasting time picking them.
Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition
>Why is it good?
Easy to get into, very easy to run, and it's very easy to homebrew for.
>Why is it bad?
Lack of official content compared to its predecessors, it's still D&D so it's going to attract a lot of bad players and also hipsters who will shit on it for not being mechanically flawless by virtue of it being the most popular. A couple classes are objectively worse than the others.
>What is the worst thing you hate about it?
No Warlord class from 4e, and there's seriously so little content for it.
>What is something weird about it?
Nothing all that weird, really. It's D&D so they couldn't stray too far from the previous editions.
Earthdawn
>Good
An amazing magic system. All the characters are explicitly magical so no one is left out of it. The magic item system is by far the best in any game I have played.
>Bad
The dice mechanics are wonky as hell, mostly due to using different sized dice (d4s all the way to d12s) and exploding dice. It makes d4s nearly equal to d6s and d8s.
>Weird
The selection of races. You have the normal Human, Dwarf, Elf. The slightly exotic Orc, Troll, T'Skang (lizard men). Then the really strange Obsidimen (Stone Guys), and Windlings (Pixies). Lastly the only elven Sub-Race, Blood Elves are elves that have merged with plant spirits and have bleeding thorns growing from their skin.
Fantasy Craft
>Good
Great customization, combat system, NPC creation system. I was introduced to RPGs through 3.5, so a system that's "3.5 but everything bad fixed" is fantastic for me.
>Bad
No players ever, Spellbound splatbook never ever, assholes giving the system a bad name by shitposting in other threads on /tg/ (stop), bad rulebook layout.
>Worst thing
Probably the layout of the book and character sheet, it's really the worst in terms of finding what you need fast.
>Weird
The lifestyle system and the reputation system, while cool in theory, have very weird interactions with actual gameplay. Also, the race choices are so vast that most games end up looking like pic related.
>>47739497
>Why is it bad?
>A lot of people don't like the card initiative
>What is the absolute worst thing about it that you just hate?
>That health thing.
I find a lot more people are turned away by the health/shaken rules, I absolutely love them myself though. I feel this is in part due to GMs building encounters as if they were running another system, you have to take quit a different approach to building combat scenarios in SW than you would with most other systems.
>>47738150
Warhammer Fantasy RPG 2nd edition
>Why is it good?
I like character creation where it is all sorts of random and you can wind up a rat catcher all the way to a Dwarven Slayer.
>Why is it bad?
Extremely high mortality rates and ease of gaining madness/mutations.
>Worst thing you just hate about it?
Rolling peasant is super easy.
>Weirdest thing about it?
Just the overall setting I guess?
>>47741511
Mind elaborating on the magic system a bit? looking to run a harry potter-esque game and am still shopping around for the right system.
>>47738150
LotFP
>why is it good?
A solid AD&D clone. One of the simplest games to pick up as a DM or new player; you have seven classes and three of them are races. There's no beastiary but you can literally just flip a few stats in the old AD&D monster manual to get what you need.
>why is it bad?
Maybe too simple. The classes are literally based around dumping points into a single specialization (fighters get rising atk bonus and nothing else, magic users use magic and that's it).
>What's the absolute worst thing you hate about it?
Apart from the previously mentioned, it does tend to go overboard in the grim/weird aspect and gives off the vibe that your players should die every session. Leveling up is a bitch if your players do anything but constantly double-check their actions and have zero balls.
>What is something weird about it?
It's still fun to play despite all of this bullshit... Kind of like AD&D
>>47738150
Can't play anything except DnD cuz my group only plays DnD.
>>47741861
I don't know the card initiative people are pretty damn vocal, especially on the rare occasions we get a sw thread here. With their agility based bullshit "fixes".
But yeah I feel ya. had this guy's issue happen to a hilarious degree in a game I ran once >>47739755 .
>>47742079
Run oneshots in other things. They don't have to get invested, but it will open them up to the suggestion of other things.
>>47741897
It wouldn't be a good fit for a Potter-esque game, but I'd by glad to oblige.
The heart of the system is based around True Patterns. True Patterns are a sort of pseudo-soul that everything has. Everything has a True Pattern, individuals, races, places, inanimate objects, and even small groups. A Sentient Being's True Patterns is capable of empowering other True Patterns to generate powerful effects.
The PCs are Adepts, people who have synced their True Patterns to certain archetypal Patterns, like the Warrior, Thief, or Wizard. This allows a Warrior adept to do things that legendary warriors do, like endure tremendous wounds, leap like a Wuxia master, and have fantastical skill with weapons. These archetypes form the basis of the classes in the game.
Blood Magic is the simplest way to connect two True Patterns. A person sacrifices some his life force (usually in the form a wound thus the name) to connect himself to something. These effects usually last a year and a day and can be renewed at a thought on expiration. An example would be Swearing a Blood Oath, which if violated will cause extreme damage as the magic backlashes against the Oathbreaker, but if kept empowers the holder when upholding the oath.
Thread Magic is the art of tying a thread of power from your True Pattern to another True Pattern. This is a more advanced and very versatile form magic. A group can form a True Pattern and bind themselves to that pattern allowing them to draw strength from their bonds. It is also how magic items are empowered. A magic sword is just a hunk of metal until its wielder ties a thread to it. Spells use temporary Threads to allow their caster to safely channel and control powerful magics.
One must be careful how they use thread or blood magic, a hostile spell caster can use the connections provided by those magics as a direct line to funnel hostile magic at your True Pattern no matter how far away they are.
>>47739497
>>47741861
>>47742123
>>47739755
I bought the Savage Worlds paperback and read through it, but I didn't quite "get" why people love it so much. It seems simpler than 3.PF for sure, but nothing really jumped out at me.
>>47742877
>I didn't quite "get" why people love it so much
>marketing victims
It's not a terrible system. But not super-duper special either. Seems rather solid.
>>47742877
That's the idea. Imagine gurps (except without all that 580 fucking page book full of batshit insanity the gm has to carefully comb through and audit for anything to get done). You can run anything in it with minimal effort to change the rules. Doesn't do anything perfectly yeah, but if I was forced to play only 1 system for the rest of my life I'd pick savage worlds and never play the same game twice.
>>47742877
>>47742919
>>47742967
It's solid in the way most generic systems are solid. In that it's more a focus on the style of play rather than anyol one setting.
Savage Worlds is good for the action gaming and "pulp" feel, where characters are great but still have a sense of mortality to them, at least from what I've seen running it.
I wouldn't run that were very realistic in it, but for just for purely an action stand point, it does the job.
>>47739295
Does someone have even played this system?
>>47738150
Nechronica
>Why is it good?
The parts system is absolutely phenomenal from both a mechanical and fluff perspective, hands down my favorite alternative to just HP. Combined with the AP track for initiative and all the varying reactions you can make at different timings, it gives it the absolute most fun combat I've seen.
>Why is it bad?
There is no official translation; no nice and reliable place to take a look at the rules. You've got a really kind of meh .pdf that never got spruced up, a website that spends more time 502 than not, or whatever backup has been cobbled together.
>What is the absolute worst thing you hate about it?
The translation is pretty much dead in the water and that fact won't be changing any time soon. Any new developments come slowly if at all.
>What is something weird about it?
Definitely the base fluff/setting that the game assumes. "Hey, we're gonna play a game about rotted, undead children after the apocalypse." is a pretty hard sell to a lot of people for understandable reasons.
Dungeons and Dragons 3.5.
>Why is it good?
There's a lot I love about it, but one of its most unusual strengths is the vastness of material. This means endless variety, rooted on a familiar basic ruleset.
Apart from that, I like the theme (fantasy superheroes), the skill system (plenty of concrete skill uses), the dice mechanic, and multiclassing. And the gotta-catch-em-all Magic: the Gathering style wizard spell acquisition.
>Why is it bad?
When most people talk about what is bad about 3.5, the focus is on how the core non-spellcasters suck. Which they do. However, that's not a big deal for me, since no-one is forcing people to play a Fighter.
For me, the biggest bad thing about D&D 3.5 is that there is no standard way to play, so it is impossible to go to another table with a character pre-made and ready to go. Ultimately, this is WotC's fault: while they clearly knew that mistakes were made the first and second time around, they were unwilling to acknowledge them, putting out new classes but pretending the old ones were just fine. That left the fans to assemble their own game from the good parts, and each person has a different creation. Which is cool, but really inconvenient.
>What is something weird about it?
One thing any D&D 3.5 dungeon master eventually notices is that there is a hidden pattern to monster statblocks which is never fully explained: modifiers connected to ability scores and other rules for the making of monsters. Clearly, Wizards' designers had their own rules for making the rules, but these rules behind the rules are never told, causing strange interactions and contradictions.
I didn't want to create a new thread with a question, so I will ask here.
Is there a decent free virtual tabletop? All the options I have found so far are subscription based abominations.
>>47739497
>"clubs can be used as an excuse to muck about with the fight"
never played. how so?
>>47746764
roll20 is free and quite successful/famous
>>47746782
Well i just looked through core and it seems that's an example of me absorbing some supplementary stuff, might be from one of the big old books of one sheet oneoffs. I've learned over the years that I read so much of the available material that I just kind of assume half of it is the norm.
The burning floor falling is one example I know for a fact I didn't come up with. Another which I believe is from one of the hellfrost books is someone drawing a 2 of clubs being struck by lightning in a fight which takes place in an intense storm (I should not that 2 of clubs is considered the worst card, and any initiative modifier will invalidate it entirely).
They come up a lot in chases and dramatic tasks too as dick-over cards. Both systems also work off of initiative though in chases the skill being used can nab you free cards (so sometimes you might want to take that 4 of hearts over the jack of clubs if you're feeling like you're not going to be able to dodge that fruit stand that's about to pop out of an alleyway).
In dramatic tasks (defusing a bomb, casting a mega arcane ritual, picking a lock while being shot at, etc). They allow for a gm to retcon in something going wrong. "You cut the green wire as instructed, but oh no the bomb's still ticking it looks like there was a redundancy." or while doing some parkour "Oh snap turns out that awning couldn't support your weight after all".
I once had a fight take place on top of an old rusted out metal cage which would give way on a club below a 4 into a 2 story drop for a moderate (2d6+2) damage fall. It's just a neat little way to throw in dynamic fighting arenas.
Oh and before i forget there is also an enemy in the horror book that is trap based that you're at risk of walking into one of their traps if you draw a clubs while fighting it.
>>47738150
Marvel/Cortex Plus Heroic Roleplaying
>Why is it good?
Exciting, modular, metafictional system that captures the bizarre powers and abilities and blow-by-blow combat of the real four-color comics.
>Why is it bad?
No real non-random character creation system besides "do it yourself" (which is fine if you're dedicated, but not so good for most people who went a) a casual game but b) to make their own characters) and advancement is tenuous and very temporary. It's supposed to represent the comics, but some things need compromise between source material and RPG.
>What is the absolute worst thing about it that you just hate?
The rulebook is written so muddily that the only /real/ way to understand the system is the Cheat Sheets (both official and fan-made) and actual play. Also it's over forever and never coming back. Also also we're never getting the rest of the Annihilation supplements and Age of Apocalypse.
>What's the weirdest thing about it?
The initiative. Basically the first person to act is "whoever has the most narratively advantageous reason to go first goes first, then pass around the table by choice". It's strange but I've kind of used it for most other games I run.
D&D 4e
>Good
Top notch magical combat
Extreme exploits/cheese
Huge lists: magic items, powers, classes
Most things reducible to simple equations
It's not D&D
>Bad
Too many complicated overlapping intersecting rules
No rules to enhance roleplaying
Extreme exploits/cheese
Too many light sources
>>47747340
Forgot these
>Hate
Too many light sources. Darkness is never an issue, right from level 1 with magelight.
>Weird
Feat tax exists. Everyone has to take expertise, it's such a waste of time at level 1.
>>47741169
Know anything about blade of the iron throne? The supposed sequel.
>>47738150
Mini-Six
>Why is it good?
has the entirety of Open Six library at your fingertips. Really simplified character creation.
>Why is it bad?
Very limited monsters/npc/bad guys. Size Categories are confusing.
>What is the absolute worst thing about it that you just hate?
Converting said open six Library is a real pain the fucking ass.
>What's the weirdest thing about it?
Some of the sample settings in the book are hit or miss, for me.
