Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 5662185" data-attributes="member: 3887">I'd like to play along, but the truth is I don't have any categorical system-related deal-breakers. My DB's exist at the level of individual campaigns. I don't mind what a system does, so long as the group uses it well.Right now I'm running AD&D and playing Savage Worlds and Pathfinder. The restrictive classes and lack of a unified mechanic in AD&D aren't a problem because my players invest their character with a lot of personality, and they don't mind my pulling most task resolution out of my hat, in lieu of a more formal system. Savage Worlds has a great implementation of advantages/disadvantages and a mostly low level of granularity. Despite that rut characters are interesting, distinctive, and on-par in terms of power/ability to act.Pathfinder is build-centric, but so what? There's a lot of fun to be had monekying with all the available character options. I find I've missed gearhead-ing a PC together, trying to find the middle ground between capable and ludicrous. I was intrigued by the new-to-me base classes, so I let the mechanics drive my PC concept --a lame elven wind oracle-- and the result was a nice synergy between the PC's mechanics and fiction. In each case, what worked could have been a problem: AD&D too limited in its character-modeling tools and too dependent on DM Fiat, SW too generic, too same-y, and Pathfinder too crunchy.</blockquote>