Best RPG System

[Urban Ranger]

What's the best RPG system? I don't mean any Computer RPG games, but a system that lets a player to generate an infinite number of campaigns and adventures.

It would be nice too if you elaborate on your choice.

[loinburger]

I'd say that the most balanced skills system in a CRPG is in Deus Ex. In terms of replayability it's fantastic; for example, if you want to be a Badass Killing Machine you can add the Aggressive Defense augmentation (which prematurely detonates enemy rockets and plasma bursts), if you want to be a Sneaky Bastard then you can add the Spy Drone augmentation (which lets you create your own flying drone robots that can scout for you, and which also carry a one-use-only EMP attack for taking out cameras, auto-guns, and robots), but you cannot add both augmentations (even with cheats). This allows you to customize your character, and also allows your to customize your style of play (for example, without Aggressive Defense I would be vaporized if I tried to face down a military robot packing missile launchers, so instead I have to find a quiet corner where I can fire up a Spy Drone to EMP the robot to death).

In terms of customizability and replayability (i.e. with regard to pen and paper RPG's) I have only had experience with the AD&D system, but this has enough customizability for me. You can generate your own spells, skills, feats, etc., and then test them out to see how the game balance works. Also, with a good DM, the focus is not on levelling up (as it is in MMORPG's, which I loathe), but instead the focus is on character development and story advancement. Unfortunately, a good DM is hard to find.

I've played some Battletech, but only as a board game and not as an RPG. I'd play it one-on-one against a friend of mine in college; we'd each build a mech (or two, or three), and the last man standing wins. We'd give our Mechwarriors skill points for winning, but that was the only RPG element that we kept.

[DarkCloud]

Might try Warhammer, it is more detailed than Dungeons & Dragons and models the real world of the land... Its skill system allows for more 'real' jobs that can have encounters with bandits and robbers.

Battletech- fairly good. I remember in a game with 9 when a Cauldron Born exploded on the map and destroyed 1 mech and injured 4 more severely.

[Shadowstrike]

I like the D&D systems after I tiner with them, but I can never find players. That and I never have time to play.

[Urban Ranger]

Have any of you played GURPS (Generic Universal Role Playing System) published by Steve Jackson games? The game mechanics are okay but the system isn't really that generic or universal.

Another system we used to tinkered a lot is the Champions system. It's very good at depicting campaigns of high power levels, i.e. superheroes etc. but not as good with dealing with normals (e.g. a person can fall from a 10-storey building and walk away unscratched).

Not sure about Deus Ex has never played it. AD&D is not a good RPG IMO. I understand some people have heavily modifed the system, but then it's no longer AD&D it's something else. There are a lot of things to dislike about, but mainly the alignment system, the class system, the way spells are casted, how experience is given, attributes, and the lack of skills (this has been improved in the later versions but as more or less a tag-on).

Warhammer isn't bad but there are lots of parcularities (e.g. rolling a 7 is the same as rolling a 6).

[The Mad Monk]

AD&D 1st edition, with all extras. The combat system kept you moving along, and the rest of the game could be as detailed--or not--as you'd like. That, and I knew the rules to the extent that I could run a game without looking up rules or tables.

2nd edition was an attempt to get gamers to throw out all thier books and buy all-new pretty garbage. Rulebooks had lots of art, larger, colorful text, and gave much less information. They were also written for a much lower reading level (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is annoying to someone used to a more literate style). Level limits to spells was arbitrary, the removal of monks and assasins was arbitrary, and what they did to rangers (my favorite class) was criminal.

3rd edition is promising, and I plan to adapt reams of it into my '1st editon' games, but in the end, it isn't the same game.

[PaleHorse76]

Urban Ranger, I agree that 1st and 2nd edition AD&D weren't very good, but I'd say that the d20 system, which 3rd edition D&D uses is a good system for an RPG.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

2nd edition was an attempt to get gamers to throw out all thier books and buy all-new pretty garbage. Rulebooks had lots of art, larger, colorful text, and gave much less information. They were also written for a much lower reading level (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is annoying to someone used to a more literate style). Level limits to spells was arbitrary, the removal of monks and assasins was arbitrary, and what they did to rangers (my favorite class) was criminal.

Most of what you said of the 2nd Edition was true, they eliminated some good stats- but the reason they changed editions was because a new person bought the company and said "I can run an RPG game better than RPG gamers because they are scum." (loosely quoted from Computer Games Magazines' expose on the D&D series)

[loinburger]

Has anybody played Wraith, Mage, or Vampire?

[Urban Ranger]

Why would anybody want to play Wraith? Wouldn't he get upset?


TMM,

A long long time ago I had all the 1^st edition AD&D books, inc. Fiend Folio and MM2. Also most of the "official" adventures and some non-official ones, mostly by Thieves' Guild. Even though it has the best rules within the AD&D "universe" I eventually found that I rather preferred a skill-based instead of a class-based system. It's not a bad intro system but there's hardly any role playing elements in them.

[Dis]

at first fallout is good. but the perks and traits aren't all that great.

I like the skills, primary and secondary stats though. combat system is decent, but needs improvement.

other than AD&D I haven't played that many rpg styles except Diablo2/1 (if you can call that an rpg of course)

I cannot remember the old wasteland rules

Anybody ever play top secret? I really loved the rule system in that game (you use 2 10 sided dice for everything- everything is a %). although good missions were hard to construct, and the game had limited playability. but the character part of it was fun as hell. Not to mention cool guns and weapons

[The Mad Monk]

I have to disagree; there is plenty of opportunity to role-play in any table-top RPG; you just have to work at it. I used to play with my brother and a very small group of friends; AD&D, Traveller, Paranoia, Toon,, we played them all (I DM'd the 'more serious' RPGs, Pete usually DM'd the others). We had a number of 'singular' characters in these games--most developed by my brother (my personal favorite was a mage the would drink anything he came across, and tended to cast his spells in the wrong direction...)

If you're talking about customization, I'd have to agree that first edition AD&D suffers in that department. The difficulty in mixing classes and the literal requirement of a miracle to improve one's stats was one of the things I did find fault with in the game. One the things I'm adapting from the 3rd ed. is the ability to gain additional stat points as the character progresses, and I'm seriously considering adding the full-blown skills system as well (allowing characters access to skills outside their class, but at a significant cost, is a very interesting concept).

[loinburger]

3rd edition AD&D can be customized into a Skill-based system instead of a Class-based system by making a few alterations: make Prestige classes that better match the character that you're trying to create, and add some Combat skills (like parry, riposte, etc.) in order to replace the level-and-class-based "base attack bonus."

[Urban Ranger]

TMM,

"I have to disagree; there is plenty of opportunity to role-play in any table-top RPG; you just have to work at it."

While that's true in a broad sense, why would you want to fight against a system that restricts you instead of using a system that promotes role-play? Certainly a person can construct adventures with "throw-away" characters that are fun to play, but it's a lot harder to do it in campaigns that lasts for months or even years. In AD&D if you don't at least make a semi- "combat monster" character he or she's going to get killed very fast.


Dissident,

Yes I have played the first edition of Top Secret. It's a lot of fun if you can get a good referee.


techophile,

Certainly you can modify the rules of any RPG to your heart's content. The question is though "Is that the original game?" I used to play in a first edtion AD&D campaign game that's modified so heavily it might as well be a totally different game.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Certainly you can modify the rules of any RPG to your heart's content. The question is though "Is that the original game?" I used to play in a first edtion AD&D campaign game that's modified so heavily it might as well be a totally different game.

The variation of AD&D that I briefly played was certainly not AD&D. In fact, I submitted an article to Dragon magazine detailing the combat modifications that I'd made to the system, and it was rejected as being too much of a departure from AD&D. But, it was one of the few RPG systems that we were familiar with (the ONLY one I was familiar with, aside from Battletech), and it had umpteen different expansions, accessories, and adventures that could be modified to fit our pseudo-AD&D campaign. Had we found an RPG system that was nearly identical to the pseudo-AD&D system that we wound up using (or one that would have been a fair replacement) it is unlikely that we would have had access to the number of "extras" that are available for AD&D. It's a trade-off to be certain.