Quote from: Jaeger on March 29, 2022, 05:51:18 PM

Quote from: S'mon on March 29, 2022, 02:30:00 AM
WEG D6 Star Wars 1e is the only game I know that is obviously better designed & possibly more fun, with Mini Six as a Coda. I mostly play/GM various iterations of D&D and love the game. Call of Cthulu is a very good game for what it does.

Early D6 is a great and well thought out system.

In my opinion, it would have had a greater impact and longer legs within the hobby if it was properly converted to a count success die-pool system as opposed to adding dice values.

I think such a d6 system like that introduced pre Shadowrun/Vampire could have become very prevalent. But such is 20/20 hindsight.

I somewhat prefer success counting dice pools, but some people hate them for some reason. Adding dice up is nice too, and provides a different feel that some might prefer, plus "pips" add an extra element of granularity to ability progression. But I think counting successes is faster than adding up a bunch of different d6 results, which is why I ultimately like it better. In fact, counting successes using d6s Shadowrun style is my second favorite mechanic, after d20+Mod.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 29, 2022, 07:28:33 PM
I somewhat prefer success counting dice pools, but some people hate them for some reason. Adding dice up is nice too, and provides a different feel that some might prefer, plus "pips" add an extra element of granularity to ability progression. But I think counting successes is faster than adding up a bunch of different d6 results, which is why I ultimately like it better. In fact, counting successes using d6s Shadowrun style is my second favorite mechanic, after d20+Mod.

I would postulate that counting success results in smaller "numbers" and some people really like their "big number" to be as big as possible, so a 15 is better than 6 successes to them. I prefer dice pools for counting successes as that gives me the feeling that the RNG is balanced out instead of arbitrary, thus I would take 2d10+Mod over d20+Mod.

1.   Palladium:  strike vs dodge/parry is much more logical than AC and hit points that accrue to ridiculous levels.   And it's a system with LOTs of worlds/genres to pick from.  Rifts.  RoboTech.  Palladium Fantasy.  Heroes Unlimited. 

2.   WEG Star Wars.  Because it's Star Wars.  Truthfully, I prefer Mini-D6 version of D6 rules, and especially using Dueling Blades for lightsaber fights.  Dueling Blades is so fun for me I might make an RPG using it as the core rules.

3.  Tiny-D6 Mecha vs Monsters:  I love a good transforming jet/robot game, and this game is easy to learn, and lets you design your own mech/monster, and game world. 

4.  Pocket Fantasy.  I like rules lite, but 1-page RPGs are usually terrible.  However, because this little free RPG has avoided that, and is multiple pages in length, it is all you need in a pint sized set of rules. It is a full game.  It's also fun right out the gate. 

*.  Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool Edition.  Honorable mention in this case for being easy and slick system that isn't D20 based.  It has a dice mechanic like Savage Worlds, but better, and more logical.  1D4 to 1D12 for attribute, and ditto for skills, as well as frequent additional dice to throw into the roll, then just pick the best 2. Easy.  And no massive hit point increase either.  You may only go from an initial 3 to maximum of 5.  But I still say honorable because the rules started as D&D, even if it's so changed it only superficially like D&D anymore. 

Quote from: Wisithir on March 29, 2022, 08:26:12 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 29, 2022, 07:28:33 PM
I somewhat prefer success counting dice pools, but some people hate them for some reason. Adding dice up is nice too, and provides a different feel that some might prefer, plus "pips" add an extra element of granularity to ability progression. But I think counting successes is faster than adding up a bunch of different d6 results, which is why I ultimately like it better. In fact, counting successes using d6s Shadowrun style is my second favorite mechanic, after d20+Mod.

I would postulate that counting success results in smaller "numbers" and some people really like their "big number" to be as big as possible, so a 15 is better than 6 successes to them. I prefer dice pools for counting successes as that gives me the feeling that the RNG is balanced out instead of arbitrary, thus I would take 2d10+Mod over d20+Mod.

Yeah, big numbers can be cool sometimes, particularly when dealing with damage, where seeing big numbers looks like you're wreaking the enemy. Though, I think that the reason some people don't like counting successes is more a stylistic thing, but I don't recall seeing it fully explained so I'm not sure what it is.

The reason I like d20+Mod is because it's fast, simple and a single roll with a decent variable range that's easy to translate into percentages on 5% increments. Plus the d20 has a certain "feel" in my hand that I like. Though, if going with multiple dice for task resolution I tend to prefer counting successes using d6s over anything else. But I've never tried 2d10+Mod, and that could work too. Stylistically, I tend to prefer the feel of the d20 and d6s, though. But d10s are my third preferred die type.

Counting successes can feel unreliable and swingy. Doesn't mean its a bad system, but thats AN explanation.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 29, 2022, 10:11:41 AM

Quote from: Bloody Malth on March 28, 2022, 09:34:11 PM

• Shadowrun, earlier editions when the rules made more sense and they hadn't leaned fully into the woke. I'm really dating myself in my first post.

I'm intrigued by this perspective because it's the exact opposite of my own -- I thought Shadowrun's rules were much easier to grasp after the 4e overhaul, particularly regarding magic and injury (if I never hear the word "staging" again in a ruleset it'll be too soon).  How did you find later editions less comprehensible than the earlier ones?

Add 1e SR to my like list as well. Its another pretty solid system. 2e is ok and does not change things too much. But I encountered it right around the time I was getting sick and tired of all these edition treadmills and so for me a 2e was a fuck no. That and with each edition they have lost some of the backstory.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 29, 2022, 11:11:15 PM
Counting successes can feel unreliable and swingy. Doesn't mean its a bad system, but thats AN explanation.

Because if you're adding up numbers, you're always getting at least a number, while with successes you can get none at all?

1. Warhammer Fantasy 1-2-4. (Maybe even with some few decent idea stolen from Fox)
2. Warhammer 40k - Dark Heresy & Rogue Trader (anything up seems just less fitted to d100 overall mech)
3. Forbidden Lands
4. Fading Suns

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 29, 2022, 10:11:41 AM

Quote from: Bloody Malth on March 28, 2022, 09:34:11 PM

• Shadowrun, earlier editions when the rules made more sense and they hadn't leaned fully into the woke. I'm really dating myself in my first post.

I'm intrigued by this perspective because it's the exact opposite of my own -- I thought Shadowrun's rules were much easier to grasp after the 4e overhaul, particularly regarding magic and injury (if I never hear the word "staging" again in a ruleset it'll be too soon).  How did you find later editions less comprehensible than the earlier ones?

Oh, I'll agree that 4th edition made the rules easier to grasp at first, but I didn't think this lead to a better played game at the table. I didn't like the hard cap, and I didn't think the other changes it made from 3rd were all that significant, but honestly I'm mostly basing this off of memories of disliking the game at the table. I can't remember too many specifics, so this is pretty subjective.

5th edition was (is? Is it still the current edition?) trash: if you play a b/e character with high b/e skills, it actually behooves you not to use any b/e equipment because it makes you worse, which makes no sense in a game that is mostly about technology. I found this problem with a lot of equipment in the game, not just b/e stuff, which makes me wonder if it was playtested well or if they looked at how it would integrate with the game.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 29, 2022, 10:56:38 AM
Shadowruns rules always sucked, and its setting did as well.  Its potential was always more impressive then reality.

To each their own. I liked how terrifying and mysterious cybermancy was when it was introduced and that they "killed off" one of their stock npc's to show its ugly affects.

The metaplot was hit or miss (I don't give a crap about a dead dragon's will, though I thought the arcology shut down was cool), but it moved the universe forward and things actually changed from sourcebook to sourcebook. Dnd settings are largely static; transformations to a setting seem to only happen at an edition change, so your players are never involved and they don't even get to witness the changes happen in the background.

I liked this living, breathing, and moving style of a game world. When playing Shadowrun, I didn't have to do all the heavy lifting myself; I could pick and choose what I liked from the background elements of sourcebooks.

1. Genesys/Fantasy Flight Star Wars
2. Shadowrun
3. Warhammer Fantasy 2e
4. World of Darkness*

Genesys despite being burdened by custom dice is excellent at doing fairly cinematic play where little stuff doesn't bog down the game and big stuff is appropriately challenging.  Shadowrun, by which I specify 3rd and 4th editions as the sweet spot for the series, is fantastic for having a whole rainbow of character options for how someone wants to play.  WFRP2 throws a brutal gory vibe into the whole fantasy genre that is extremely fun to play.  And WoD, well.  I prefer the original 90s setting but the nWoD ruleset, which helped make fights vastly less of a slog.  I haven't kept up with the versions since then as the property spirals the drain.

Quote from: Bloody Malth on March 30, 2022, 06:58:30 PMI liked how terrifying and mysterious X was when it was introduced and that they "killed off" one of their stock npc's to show its ugly affects.

They do this like twenty times. Over and over. I could fart in Shadowrun and release another new horrific monster, or a new form of mind control. Because Shadowrun is a monster of the week setting and lacks real internal change.

QuoteI liked this living, breathing, and moving style of a game world.

Living, breathing, and moving yes, but also comatose. The setting does not expect shadowrunners or PCs to play a big role. It plays with itself and then your just there to watch. Which would be fine if the focus was on low end stuff, but it almost exclusively focuses on what the 'big players' do. And focusing on small ground level stuff never happens or is ULTRA boring (as in presented in a boring way). Having PCs do interesting and high end stuff is limited exclusively to the videogames.

But even then, the changes that do happen are utterly irrelevant. Assholecorp gets overtaken and replaced by Bastardon. The High Dragon Oyboi gets defeated and put into stasis by the Aquatic Dragon Bulloni. Maybe another city becomes a no-go zone. Whatever.
But the Shadowrunners are never involved or are only involved in a token state. Their stock NPCs are not the real authors pets. Its the antagonists.

Static settings are better because they expect the PCs to change stuff, or live in it. Changing settings pressure players into not.

Hmmm.  Well i still very much enjoy AD&D (and B/X as well, which has a charm all its own)... and avoid more modern (post 2e)
versions this list will be pretty dated. 

1. Warhammer Fantasy Role Play (1st Editon)
2. RuneQuest (Any, but i still have the old Avalon Hill 3rd edition as well as Chaosium's more recent version)
3. RoleMaster/M.E.R.P
4. ?? 

Couldn't decide between Old HarnMaster, Stormbringer or Call of Cthulhu... would have helped if it was a list of SEVEN games
"better" than D&D.  Which for me still means B/X or AD&D, so i like it just fine... though all of the above got me out of playing
it back in the late 80's (particularly Warhammer) when i was annoyed with TSR's direction at the time.

Quote from: Omega on March 29, 2022, 09:56:49 AM
2e/r Gamma World: Great setting when you ignore the "ha-ha its funnyyyyyyy!" morons. Good system too. Though artifact figuring out isnt quite as good as other editions.

I love Gamma World and 2nd Edition was my introduction to it, but the setting was clearly intended to be ridiculous.  There are evil humanoid bunny rabbits whose touch turns metal to rubber.  Lion-bats with beetle mandibles that shoot lasers out of their eyes and eat ancient clothing.  Many-legged insect-horse hybrids with the obviously jokey name "Centisteed".  Savage humanoid creatures descended from dogs that eat human hands (literally biting the hands that once fed them).  There's a faction that's led by a megalomaniacal mutated bear who believes he's Napoleon and finds inspiration in Mein Kampf and Animal Farm.

The published adventures, which give a sense of how the game was intended to be run, include things like:  Evil badger men worshipping the University of Wisconsin Bucky Badger mascot as a god.  A race of mutated chickens who are military geniuses and would conquer the world if not for a complete blind spot when it comes to the robotic jailers who keep them confined to an ancient poultry processing plant.  Mutated bears called "Smokies" who ironically start forest fires by using pyrokinesis in order to cook their prey.  (The illustration depicts a salivating bear in a park ranger uniform holding a mess kit knife and fork.)

That sort of stuff is clearly intended to be funny, and people who recognize that aren't morons.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 30, 2022, 10:06:49 PM
Static settings are better because they expect the PCs to change stuff, or live in it. Changing settings pressure players into not.

I look at it the other way: Static settings let you know that nothing your character does matters because the setting just reboots to the start again.