Today's most popular role-playing games are:

both?

40k is a very simple game with waaaaaay too many rules sprinkled on top.

wtf i hate gurps now?

Why do you need to know how to calculate string length in an imaginary game of pretend? Not even the most autistic of novels touches on that concept.

C) Wonderfully varied, because there's nothing wrong with wanting to have hardcore simulation where half the game is system mastery or whimsical roleplay with rules that only exist to facilitate a little chance where it matters.

The problem is when you sell yourself as something when you're something else.

> some people think using math to deduce a number is worse than creating arbitrary rules
GURPS isn't 'universal' at all and i barely ever use it, but i never understood the issue some people take up with its 'complexity', as its basically all optional stuff.

I don't think they're too structured enough.

He´s right

I really liked Warhammer fantasy before AoS, now theres 4 different factions to choose from as opposed to the large amount previously available and the rules are incredibly silly.
Not to many games are too structured due to the streamlining bs.

Infinity has a good amount of rules, but that's because the system can accommodate them in my opinion. It's rule system is more addictive than subtractive; each rule adds something to the model or unit, rather than removing a restriction on the model from the game's core rules.

As says, 40k is very reductive in its rules. Rules that let you charge or run after shooting (when you otherwise can't), always getting some bonuses while never suffering certain penalties, imposing limitations on actions models can and cannot perform from the core rules... There is additive stuff, but for every additive rule there's half a dozen reductive rules spread around.

I just play complex systems and simplify or throw out rules that I find too convoluted.

Before anyone says this is unfair to players. I could summon a giant rape dragon at any time as the GM and kill them all within the structures of the rules, but I don't because there's a degree of trust that I'm there to make the game fun. The rules don't do that.

Rules are just there for features and diversity. Just keep the core stuff and add the rest for variety.

>A) Too structured
>B) Not structured enough

Both, at the same time.

Our GM does this for rogue trader combat and I think its an excellent way to play. We don't get overwhelmed by the rules and he lets us do a lot of extra stuff that wouldn't be in the rules.

What are today's most popular roleplaying games? D&D5e, Pathfinder and? Maybe savage worlds, GURPS, nWoD and Shadowrun all fucking around for second fiddle. After that Heartbreakers/fate/OSR/indiPbtAhacks seems about right as a rough outline.

So 5e is medium structured as a reference point, pathfinder is almost the same structure but more shit stacked on it. Savage Worlds, Shadowrun, GURPS and nWoD are procedural as fuck, all in different ways having more specific rules for things than 5e. Heartbreakers tend to be more rule specific because there are things the designers want to address in their minutia that were missing from their old gaming experiences. Fate has a lot of structure and mechanics, just not stuff that cares about the difference between 9mm and 10mm in percentile increments. PbtA hacks and most indie games are procedural, and have to be otherwise they don't work because they're focused on very specific experinces. Most OSR is more structured around themes of the game, requiring certain aspects of dungeon/hex crawling to be covered under rules that use resource management and randomized rolls leading to narrative, as well as having to be somewhat similar to B/X, although they might be the least structured in many ways just due to how things play out.

tl;dr most tgs are structured in more ways than not. Otherwise they're not games with rules, they're free form. Which often has rules and structure to how discourse is formed anyway although the differences and overlaps between 'games' and 'play' is important.

Was "A" until Age of Sigmar came along.

Now, it's "B."

oh shit forgot warhams 40k rpgs, probably in second tier, towards the top. Also very structured, more than other stuff given how class advancement is set up.

If you don't like that, I've created a Fate hack for DH. It's what all the cool kids are doing.

Trade you for a GUMESHOE version. Its not mine but seems alright.

Agreed. I kinda wish they'd go back to the core of the game and drop a lot of the gunk they've thrown in with 6th and 7th ed (7th ed psyker rules and death from the skies being the most obvious targets for simplification imo).

I can kind of agree with that. 5E isn't perfect but it gets that part very right.

Good examples for B include the 40k RPGs. Jesus fuck those are a mess. An example for A might be 4e, but I'm not entirely sure of that.

AoS is not "most wargames". It's hardly a wargame at all.

A) 40k. A lot of rules used to achive very little. In some ways also WMH.
B) Maybe AoS, but that falls more into the "not enough gasoline" section.
I feel like most real wargames and skirmishers nowadays have an appropriate amount of rules.

I don't think it's unfair, but it definitely would save you a lot of explaining if you picked a system with fewer rules and then just used ALL of the rules.

...

I vaguely agree as far as structure goes, although I don't like the extremely confined nature of that game.

Whatever, as long as you're consistent and let everyone know what's up ahead of time.

But we both know you aren't and you don't. Your games are shit.

>Don't criticize me for assaulting that guy. I could have murdered him.

There are some "special" people even in GURPS community that has this odd obsession to calculate fucking everything. I'd say this isn't the norm. These people go to the same loonie bin as Mary Sue players, Munchkins and general spergers.

>Roll 20
>Mostly d20 games.

Gee.

I'd rather die
And you're a fucking retard too

>Veeky Forums
>more than 4 boards

It would be cool if there were procedural plot-generation structures, and less emphasis on structured combat.

because it's fun

It's probably the same faggot that shows up whenever 3.X is mentioned in a thread.

He'll probably go into an autismo rant about how 3.PF is "teh most popular game evar!!!!" and how it cannot possible be flawed or whatever and then sperg out until this thread reaches the bump limit.

Is that the same one who basically does the same for dw in an attempt to get the two sides to flame?

I don't know if he's the same person but he's a frequent troll who fanboys for 3.X and gets really, really angry whenever people point out its flaws.

He usually calls any flaw you bring up "petty," "subjective," or some other type of shit and then calls you pathetic and a minority for bringing it up.

My pet theory is that they are the same person, because their posting times seem to be close.

And since they are such low effort trolls, I'll just go ahead and assume it's virt again between two shifts in subway.