Which RPG system, in your opinion, is the best mechanically?

Which RPG system, in your opinion, is the best mechanically?
Which best achieves the goals it has set for itself?
Rules heavy, rules light - it doesn't matter. Which RPG out there do you consider to be the most solidly built?

D10s a lewd, platonic dice = best dice.

Dice aren't systems, user.

D12 a best.

Although I don't like what the game is actually about I think that MonsterHearts is a really well designed game. All of the skins are tightly thematic but still have room for variety, the basic moves work well to create a constant cycle of teenage bullshit, and the social mechanics with the strings and conditions work out very well.

RuneQuest 6

The one the experienced GM creates to best fit the games theme and setting.

GURPS is the most solidly built, just look how long they go between editions, and how much GMs of other systems use the source books.

It achieves the goals it set for itself, but those goals aren't flavour or fun. Rather, its goal is a specific form of playability.

Go, eh, my inner Veeky Forums loyalty, Mosaic. Solid, Goals met, not GURPS

From what I've read it seems that it is based on Apocalypse World. Would you say the general rules of AW are also as solid, or are the specific rules in MonsterHearts better?

Seconding gurps
Fuck yes, bell curve logistics

This. It's not perfect for every type of game, but it can do a remarkable amount of things pretty well without being, well, GURPS.

On that note, obligatory GURPS post in 3... 2... 1...

I'd probably say it's a tie between Basic Roleplaying and GURPS.

your countdown was late.

Look up stupid. Gurps was recommended before you even posted.

Classic Deadlands is my pic for the best system mechanically. The way it integrates poker mechanics into the game itself is delightful and really reinforces the Wild Western theme. The incredibly lethal damage location rules are perfect for horror as well, because so many horror baddies are only vulnerable to damage on a specific body part.

It is a PbtA game, It's harder for me to judge AW since I've run MH but never run or played AW, that said from looking at the rulebook it seems like it would be equally good at doing action as MH is at doing teen drama

That said the points I mentioned about highly thematic classes as well as the social currency system are both features I really like anyway and don't apply so much to AW

This first.

After that, I'd say Shadowrun has a good thing going nowadays. If you prefer to keep things light, a good GM makes the Apocalypse World engine or GURPS as strong as it needs to be.

Barbarians of Lemuria sets a pretty simple goal, and does it very well.

Pathfinder does what it's intended to do really well. Which is to deliver an enjoyable group experience in a fantasy setting full of barbarians and wizards.

RQ 6/Mythras is my choice as well. It is well suited for any story I would run, and the design team's continued support for the product leads to amazing settings and rule supplements.

Are you going to play Alternity...I mean, Starfinder?

Legends of the Wulin. It has its bugs, but it sets a new gold standard for awesome, enjoyable combat in an RPG, combining mechanical depth with narrative flair. Sadly the game seems to be DOA, but I'm hoping it inspires other games to take ideas from its amazing combat system.

What?

Pathfinder..in space.

I'd rather not. I dislike scifi.

What about High Fantasy? Like think Dying Earth.

I wouldn't call PF a mechanically competent game. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed it more than a few times, but ruleswise it's just as fuckbusted as 3.PF was, and requires a lot of work behind the GM screen to run smoothly.

4th edition DND.

Just dont use essentials classes. They are the cancerous face tumor on an otherwise extremely solid system.

Correction. I dislike settings that don't happen on a planet that's not a parallel to earth and has mystical magical shit under every bush and leaf

>Solid system
>Falls apart if you use the core classes.
Nigger you dumb.

The core classes are not the essentials classes. Nigga you dumber, AND just showed that you know nothing about the game.

Mechanically?
Achieves goals?
Solid?

Ironclaw Omnibus probably, but I gave it a shot on Veeky Forums's recommendation and haven't gotten around to a lot of other RPGs yet.
It was better than Pathfinder, for sure, and I didn't have any complaints or hangups which is a first for any RPG. Granted it was a mishmash of things I recognize from other stuff (eg 4e D&D) but it had no baggage as a system and didn't fall short anywhere. On the other hand, it doesn't need to wrestle with things like rules for automatic weapons fire, but for what it did do it did better than anything else I've run.

Runners up are:
Probably Shadowrun in 1st runner up (although as a composite of several editions) for "modern"+future setting stuff.

2nd is Savage Worlds is good too, but that's why I tried Ironclaw as well and although it's similar on a lot of things it's fairly different in approach and SW suffers from some of the design problems the more popular d20 systems did. There's been some good D&D and related d20 systems, but they're clunky as fuck, and I have yet to find a d% system that's not even more clunky or broken than Pathfinder.

3rd place I'll give to Fantasycraft, because it was the best results of trying to fix 90's-00's D&D.

>The core classes are not the essentials classes.
Okay. So someone can't play a barbarian, fighter, wizard, cleric, Druid, bard, sorcerer, or rogue? You do know that essential classes are the ones most people play?

Once again, you're showing that you have no idea what you're talking about.

'Essentials' was a set of supplements late in 4e's lifespan which were, save for a few small exceptions, utter garbage. They were a desperate attempt to pander to the 3.PF crowd and ended up ruining most of what made 4e good in the process. Every Essentials class is a less interesting, less fun to play variant of a class you can find in the PHB.