Which gaming system has the best mechanics and why?

[billd91]

Which gaming system has the best mechanics and why?

I particularly want to know which d20 system has the best mechanics over all, conducive for theater of the mind and robust for balance. - But also interested in alternative systems like 3d6 in AGE, d100 in Eclipse Phase or differently the d100 in Marvel, and other kinds of systems.

For mechanics who has the best?

You can't really answer best mechanics without asking "for what". If you're looking for a high-quality d20 system that's conducive for theater of the mind and robust for balance, I think one of your best bets is Mutants and Masterminds. It's based on the d20 engine but exists pretty well without being overly dependent on the grid system. It is also relatively easy to balance. It does, however, entail some fairly complex character design using relatively generic powers and that may make it challenging for beginners. It is also, as you might guess from its title, geared toward superhero gaming and that means it may take a little work to make it Call of Cthulhu-ready if you were interested in Lovecraftian horror gaming.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But "universal" is itself genre of game.

A 'genre' of game, in a marketing sense, perhaps, in that you can speak coherently of universal as opposed to multi-genre as opposed to genre-specific as opposed to licensed games. In the sense that we were using it, though, in the sense of what genre does the game model, no, a universal system is meant to be able to model any genre, not model the 'universal genre.'

Imagine that the OP asked, which tool is best, and you answered "Swiss Army Knife". In order to be what it is, the Swiss Army Knife must make many design choices and compromises that impact its character. The Swiss Army Knife's screwdriver will never be as good as a full stand alone screwdriver, for example.

A poor analogy: RPG systems are complex by their very nature (even 'rules lite' systems just punt that complexity to the GM or even GM+players), more like large toolkits than a single tool.
The answer to 'what's the best toolkit' can be narrowed down if it's to be used for a specific purpose (repairing a watch, plumbing, working on cars, working on a 1964 mustang, whatever) or limited by philosophy ('right tool for the job,' 'I can make my own tools,' 'the human hand is the most efficient tool ever designed,' 'I can't afford anything fancy,' whatever) - if not, you need a more complete kit with all sorts of tools, English, metric, whatever... and adjustable and interchangeable tools start becoming very efficient choices.

The other reason I personally find universal systems good candidates for 'best' system is that they can always be compared to other systems, so there's no denying the question.

(And, another good reason to prefer, if not consider 'best,' such systems - which also applies to multi-genre systems, and core systems like d20 - is that it saves you from needing to master many different systems.)

 

[aramis erak]

The best d20 fantasy system is hands down Fantasy Craft. It's far and away the most thought-out, cohesive iteration of the OGL d20 rules in existence. If I go back to d20, it would be the system I'd use.

As far as Tony Vargas' claim that the "best" system has to be universal......I don't know how I feel about that. I think you could argue that the best RPG is one that accomplishes what it sets out to do the best.

The trick is whether you believe what a given RPG sets out to do has value. If rules-heavy systems don't give you a game experience you like, claiming that something like GURPS is the world's greatest system isn't going to resonate.

For example, Savage Worlds is the best action oriented, rules-medium, universal RPG with a dedicated focus on making GM prep insanely simple. If you completely disagree with that design paradigm, you're not likely going to be a fan.

I'd argue that Universal engines are automatically NOT in the running, as they all have one area where the shine, and others where they suck badly, thus all fail at their design intent, let alone as overall designs.

Heck, a lot depends upon how one defines best mechanics.

Easiest to adapt to a range of playstyles?
Easiest to adapt to a range of genres?
Handles most genres without adaptation?
Handles most playstyles without adaptation?
Best adapted to the setting covered?

For me, I'd say...

Easiest to adapt to a range of playstyles: d6
Easiest to adapt to a range of genres: Fate
Handles most genres without adaptation: EABA
Handles most playstyles without adaptation: possibly BRP or MRQ. Lots of optional crunch.
Best adapted to the setting covered: The One Ring (cubicle 7), or Marvel Heroic Roleplay (Margaret Weiss Productions)

 

[Crothian]

The best is Dread. Character creation is a questionnaire and the mechanics work as a Jenga tower. It is only really good for playing Dread and that's one of the best things about it. Game systems that try to be generic just do very little good and most things average. I much prefer a great system that is perfect for the genre and game that I am going to run and if I want survival horror nothing is better then Dread.

 

[Umbran]

A 'genre' of game, in a marketing sense, perhaps, in that you can speak coherently of universal as opposed to multi-genre as opposed to genre-specific as opposed to licensed games. In the sense that we were using it, though, in the sense of what genre does the game model, no, a universal system is meant to be able to model any genre, not model the 'universal genre.'

Not in terms of fictional genre, no. But it is more than just marketing. There are "genres" of game - not of fiction, but of *game* - like "rules lite" is a genre, or "narrative game" is a genre. A "universal game" has features that fictional-genre-specific games do not, and vice versa. The "generic" games thus form a group (or genre) of their own. You are still making a genre choice here, it just isn't about the fictional genre.

A poor analogy: RPG systems are complex by their very nature (even 'rules lite' systems just punt that complexity to the GM or even GM+players), more like large toolkits than a single tool.

Quibble over words. Take a toolbox of some given size. I can fill it with job-specific tools, and make it an electricians toolbox, or an auto-repair toolbox, or a carpentry toolbox, or a plumbing toolbox. I can also make it a "homeowners" toolbox, with a few tools for each of those.

The generalist toolbox may be fine if you aren't doing anything too deep into any particular area. But, let us not kid ourselves that the well-outfitted generalist's box is as good a toolbox for plumbing as a well-outfitted plumbing-specific toolbox would be.

We are still left with a question of what you are trying to do before we ask the question of what the person is trying to do. If you have a simple leaky faucet, maybe the generalists box will do. If, however, you're installing a whole new bathroom, that generalist's box just isn't going to cut it. Until you ask the question, you can't know that the generalist-box will be "best" for them.

It doesn't help when, to be honest, the "generic" games are usually not nearly so generic as they claim to be. GURPS is a fine example here - "Generic" is part of the name. But, in its design, it is fairly rules-heavy, and kind of gritty. It does not do fast-moving, epic high-action very well. I find its attempt at Supers... kind of laughable, I am afraid.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not in terms of fictional genre, no. But it is more than just marketing. There are "genres" of game - not of fiction, but of *game* - like "rules lite" is a genre, or "narrative game" is a genre. A "universal game" has features that fictional-genre-specific games do not, and vice versa. The "generic" games thus form a group (or genre) of their own. You are still making a genre choice here, it just isn't about the fictional genre.

Considering the very common use of genre to mean genre of fiction, using to also group games by qualities of their system (like 'rules lite' or 'generic') was a little too ambiguous. But, yes, if you want to pick the best game in a limited sub-set, you could, you'd just be picking from a smaller field.

The generalist toolbox may be fine if you aren't doing anything too deep into any particular area. But, let us not kid ourselves that the well-outfitted generalist's box is as good a toolbox for plumbing as a well-outfitted plumbing-specific toolbox would be.

You could, at least, compare the generalist 'homeowners' toolbox to the plumber's toolkit or the computer technician's toolkit. You couldn't find much comparison between, the plumber's kit and the tech's kit. That's what I mean about the universal system at least being comparable, it never gets a free pass.

[uoqte]It doesn't help when, to be honest, the "generic" games are usually not nearly so generic as they claim to be. GURPS is a fine example here - "Generic" is part of the name. But, in its design, it is fairly rules-heavy, and kind of gritty. It does not do fast-moving, epic high-action very well. I find its attempt at Supers... kind of laughable, I am afraid.[/QUOTE]To be fair, even though the 'U' in GURPS originally meant 'Universal,' it hasn't claimed to actually be universal in a very long time. Since it's 3rd or 4th edition, IIRC, it's only claimed to be 'multi-genre.' So if you manage to find a genre that GURPS doesn't have a worldbook for, it would be excused from comparison with games that exclusively handle that genre.


That's part of why I gave the opinion I did. I choose to hold up a game that claims to be 'best' against all other games. Since there are games that handle any given genre, any game that doesn't handle every genre hard-fails against at least one genre-specific game, and all genre-specific games hard fail, because of all the genres they can't do at all. Thus, only universal games are genuinely in the running. There may multiple games that win a comparison with them in every single genre or every narrow classification of game someone wants to dream up, but those 'winners' can't be deemed a 'best' system, since they, also, loose in every comparison outside their specialty.

Just a way of looking at it that allows me to come up with an answer to the question of one 'best' system, rather than just denying the question.

 

[JeffB]

I think I'd vote Dungeon World.

It drives the action and story through simple mechanics, AS LONG AS everyone is on top of their game, so to speak. Its story, exploration and action focused, and a mediocre or even bad roll usually leads to interesting new twists...not the typical pass/fail of D&D. I have been surprised by and enjoy now letting players roll all the dice, and adding their own elements to the fiction. And I like having a system that steers away from linear pre-written Adventres ala modern Adventure Paths from WOTC and Paizo. I ran a wonderful several session DW game just coming up with a list of names, places and ideas based on the mini gaz in B3 (orange cover) and the plot/enemies of B3 (green cover). It was definitely the best time I have had DM'ing in the past 20 years. Of course it started to veer off in places, but that was a strength.

Great system. Not for the number crunchers, character build , or simulationists though.

 

[Jhaelen]

Thus, only universal games are genuinely in the running. There may multiple games that win a comparison with them in every single genre or every narrow classification of game someone wants to dream up, but those 'winners' can't be deemed a 'best' system, since they, also, loose in every comparison outside their specialty.

Err, what? I think everyone will agree that there's no single best system for "everything" (Unless there's an RPG system called Forty-Two... ). It's also not what the OP asked. He gave some parameters to narrow down the choices - just not enough!

I'm with Umbran regarding generic (or universal) system. Imho, they're the 'bards' among RPG systems: Jack-of-all-trades and masters of none. I'd never consider playing with such a system, since there'll always be a dedicated, specialized system that works better for what I have in mind.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Err, what? I think everyone will agree that there's no single best system for "everything"

Clearly, not everyone. I'll agree that not everyone can agree on what that best system might be, or what criteria matter, and you can always narrow down categories to consider the 'best' RPG with some provisos. But, you snipped enough of what I was saying that you made it sound like I was making some universal claim, when I was talking about my own criteria for 'best' and why I prefer those criteria. I'm not speaking for anyone else, just to make that clear, again.

It's also not what the OP asked. He gave some parameters to narrow down the choices - just not enough!

He asked both, and my first replay answered both.

I'm with Umbran regarding generic (or universal) system. Imho, they're the 'bards' among RPG systems: Jack-of-all-trades and masters of none. I'd never consider playing with such a system, since there'll always be a dedicated, specialized system that works better for what I have in mind.

That's an obvious inference, but I don't personally find it's always true. Much of the time the licensed game or narrow-niche game will do it's thing much better than the broader-genre, mutli-genre or universal system. But not every time. Some games, however much they may specialize, just aren't that good.

 

[innerdude]

For me personally, I know that any game that I would consider the "best" RPG out there would use a bell-curve distribution for dice rolling. Simply put, the natural world we inhabit operates on a bell-curve distribution. If you want to have any real attempt at modeling "real world" action resolution, your system has to use a bell curve.

The problem I've found is that the most popular bell-curve systems--GURPS, HERO--are "roll under."

Put bluntly, I dislike roll-under systems, and I hate with a flaming, furious passion GURPS' version of it. I hate the nebulousness of degree of success, I hate the idea that as a player you NEVER have any real idea of what the "target" level of success is. Is a "standard" success good enough? Do I need to roll 4 under the the obstacle? 5 under?

For that reason alone I've pretty much discounted ever playing HERO as well (sorry [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]). I just can't stand the basic 3d6-roll under resolution.