GURPS is my go-to system. It’s incredibly flexible, both in what it allows you to do as a player, and what kind of game you can run as a GM.

It’s an older system, and by default is rather simulationist - it grew out of the same tabletop wargaming that D&D did, and tends to take a more realistic approach to what players can do than more narrative systems. I like some of the more narrative systems as well - Starforged is my other go-to system - but the characters always feel a little more loosely defined to me. GURPS is perfectly happy saying “okay, you can fly, you can turn invisible, and you can’t be killed” - but if you want to make your character more nuanced, it’s not only possible, but encouraged!

On the other hand, if you just want to throw something together and go, you can do that too! One of my players has a character sheet that consists of their racial abilities, 5 or 6 regular skills, and a high level “Security!” wildcard skill. And 3 guns. They’re a nightmare in combat, because “Security!” is their all-in-one skill with pistols and melee combat, along with anything else a person with a security background would be expected to know - it’s been rolled against to evaluate patrol schedules, reading a foe’s body language, and shadowing a mark, among other things. That character plays alongside someone with three different templates (classes), a mount, a bevy of different equipment options, and something like 55 different skills - because that player -wanted- that kind of detail. And they’re both very effective in their domains, and play off of each other well.

That’s the thing that really sticks out to me about GURPS - it’s very playable with a very minimal ruleset (GURPS Ultra-Lite is free, and 2 pages - http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ultra-lite/), and can seamlessly expand when you want more detail. And not only are there a lot of options for that detail, they also show their work - so if you’re still missing something, you can generally still come up with reasonable rules. It just gets a reputation for being super complicated because the people who discover it tend to get excited and throw everything in…

I genuinely thought this was about chess for a second.

the games i like allow the players to have collaboration in storytelling and worldbuilding as part of the game mechanics (e.g. fabula points in Fabula Ultima)

This is called the X/Y problem. You ask “how do I use X to do Y”, and the answer is you don’t. You don’t even want to. You want to do Y, and just assumed that X is how you’d do it. So the answer might actually be “don’t use X.”

To some people, they see your question as “How can I do [thing] in [game that does not do thing]?” Since they see it as an inherently flawed question, they try to fix your root issue and explain how to do [thing]. It’s not the answer you wanted, but it might be the one you need.

I will admit, some people just like to shit on [game you’re playing], and will take every opportunity to hype up [game they’re playing]. But just as often, I see people defending [game they’re playing] just because they’re already playing it. And there is no harm in playing multiple games.

I have a game on my shelf built for pure fight scenes that can’t do downtime (Panic at the Dojo), and a game built for wholesome slice-of-life that doesn’t let you do combat (Golden Sky Stories). They simply cannot do what the other does, and I wouldn’t like either of them as much if they did.

I love Pathfinder 2E! I’m a pretty new player, but it’s captured my heart. The three-action economy is great and offers so much freedom. The characters are INSANELY customizable, and I love how multiclassing works. And to top it all off, everything you need to play is free! Only the lore and campaigns have to be purchased. Plus, iirc, Paizo has vowed never to use generative AI in their works!

lancer (epic mecha building fantasy. make a big beautiful bot from a ridiculously large number of options over time and fight. super duper crunchy)

Lancet is so much fun. It’s really about building super op mechs and the GM doing the excavation same thing to you.

The lore is amazing. NPHs, blink space, Ra, Horous, and more.

mothership (aliens the ttrpg. shit goes down on spaceships. you will probably die in a spectacular way. it will be fun.)

We had a total party kill within hour and half. So much fun. The GM was telling us the party before fucked up so bad, the planet had to get nuked.

I just started DMing an Ironsworn campaign for my wife. I like that it’s fiction-forward rather than mechanics-forward, and being able to run a campaign built around having only 1 player makes scheduling so simple, reliable, and just an all around good experience.

in general, i agree. it’s just a game and more often than not the system encourages you to tweak it to fit your group. however, i feel like there are times when people fight against the system by trying to hack it apart and rebuild it in their image. while i don’t directly discourage this, sometimes this is done at a detriment and without consideration for balance or fun. if you like the changes you’ve made to your favorite system, and it works well at the table, then keep doing that. but if you’re looking for ways to trim the fat, or like the ideas but not the mechanics, then there are so many more options to choose from than monolithic popular game.

i think it’s okay to point out to people that there are systems that already exist that solves their specific problems. that’s more than likely why they exist in the first place. and this goes especially for those who are new to ttrpgs in general, as there are lots of fantastic options for introducing people to the scene. i readily encourage people to try new things and experience how different systems make changes to the formula to fit their purpose.

speaking purely as a gm, and this is my personal preference, i don’t want to fight a system to make it do what i want. if it doesn’t, and that’s a detriment to my personal playstyle, then it’s likely not the system for me. i’m not married to any one set of rules, nor do i want more work to make any one system solve all my problems. if someone else wants to do that, finds enjoyment in that, and does it well, then more power to them.

The lack of initiative/spotlighting system in daggerheart is also chef’s kiss

I literally can’t believe it took us 50 years of ttrgs existing in basically their modern form for us to find the 3 action system. Its so intuitive and liberating compared to every other game system I’ve experienced.

I’m a fan of old-school Shadowrun (2nd ed.); it didn’t matter how bad-ass your character was, you could get killed by a lucky shot from a punk with a zipgun. It kept the grime of Cyperpunk, and added fantastical elements to it. IMO, it required more role-playing than is strictly necessary in a lot of D&D games, because going in guns blazing all the time was almost certain to lead to death; properly played (IMO), the GM should be brutal in how they handle stupid players.

The downside was so many six sided dice.

Oh I can do both. Though it’s not necessarily that I think 5e sucks, (maybe 5.5e does though I don’t know it well), but rather that Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro sucks and I refuse to continue to support them.

Although I do have to thank them since I very likely would not have explored other systems so vigorously had they not so visibly shown how greedy they’ve become.

I mean, that’s true.

5e sucks and you should play a different system

The thing is, this applies much less firmly to an imagination game where you can easily bolt on a sub-system to do that one thing you wanted to do differently than, say, if someone wants to beat in a screw with a hammer.

And yes, maybe there are people who want to gut their whole game and rebuild it from scratch for some reason, just because they really love sailing on their ship of Thesus, and would be better served by trying a new system. But if they don’t want to do that, someone trying to redirect the conversation in that direction are going to be viewed as hostile and smug, not helpful.

Mutants and Masterminds is kind of interesting. I like how it’s designed so character creation is entirely point buy. There’s no classes. No spells. You pay for skills and abilities directly. There’s basic powers, and modifiers you can use to make them more interesting. It’s also geared towards balance as opposed to simulation, which means you can make whatever type of character you want instead of having to stick with what’s optimal.

Unfortunately, it’s not well-done. For example, they frequently forget the game uses a log scale and cut numbers in half. Someone with a Dodge rank of -2 who is Vulnerable has their active defenses halved, which brings their Dodge rank up to -1. Equipment is 3 to 4 times cheaper than Devices, with the only differences being flavor (Equipment is something a normal person can get) and a different method of calculating Toughness that very often makes Equipment stronger. I ended up making a list of house rules trying to fix all of them (and admittedly including a few alternate rules that aren’t clearly better or worse) that’s so long that it would probably be easier to make a new RPG.

I don’t suppose I can get any advice on something I would like? My requirements are:

1. A point buy system that lets you make any character you want.
2. Costs are based on making characters balanced, and not how literally expensive a piece of equipment would be and that sort of thing.
3. Must be balanced as far as reasonably possible without massive flaws like M&M.
4. I’d really like having a wide variety of characters you can make and things you can do. Make it so you can just play a Swarm, or a character of any size class, or anything else you can think of.

Ironsworn was my first exposure to a fiction-first game! I didn’t really gel with the setting, but still really like the mechanics. Ended up backing Starforged (and later Sundered Isles), that seems like a much better fit for me!

It’s sister setting, Earthdawn, also had a lot going for it on top of the typical D&D formula. Weaving, instead of casting magic, was a much more involved process for the player/character which did a lot to ground such awesome power. At the same time, fighters of all stripes were also more or less magic users, which unified the whole rule system in a nice way. The setting itself was a fantasy post-apocalypse, troubled by evil horrors that dominated the landscape in the centuries before. In fact, much of the lore was intertwined with how people survived those times.

And like Shadowrun, there were lots of dice thanks to the “step table” system. It could be a huge PITA to sum all the rolls on high steps, but then when else do you get to roll entire fists full of dice all at once?

I never got a campaign off the ground, but Palladium had, I thought, a great system.

I loved the approach to alignment (good, selfish, evil) and awarding xp for roleplaying, clever ideas, and problem solving, rather than simply killing an enemy.

I was introduced to flyweight RPGs a few years back and I absolutely love what they can do in the hands of a creative group.

Roll for Shoes is about as minimal as it gets. You will need one D6, and something to track player inventory. The game world is best started by the GM in the abstract, letting the players fill in the world’s details through creative use of questions that prompt die rolls. This is fantastic for players that want to stretch their improv skills.

Lasers & Feelings has a tad more structure. Everyone has exactly one stat that sits on a spectrum of “lasers” to “feelings”. The difficulty of challenges in the game sit on the same spectrum. Depending on the nature of the challenge and what the player’s stat is, a single D6 roll decides the outcome. Everything else is role-playing in what is encouraged to be a Trek-like setting.

In my experience, Roll for Shoes usually turns into a cartoon-esque “let’s see what else is in my backpack” affair, that usually ends with everything on fire (because of course it does). Lasers & Feelings typically devolves into Lower Decks. All of these are positives in my book - I’d play again in a heartbeat.

Out of curiosity, what is the 3 action system?

I know FATE has 4 actions (overcome, attack, defend, create an advantage) so did PF merge attack and defend? Or is it a different choice?