The guy who learns ten different systems to try to make up for the fact that he's a shitty GM regardless of what he runs

Do those tiddies every come out?

>The guy who learns lots of different systems and talks about them all the time, but always runs D&D anyway.

Knowing a system well is one of the least important things for a good GM, because a good GM is more often than not ignoring the system, changing it, and otherwise not drawing attention to it.

>that player who hasn't learned even one system
>that faggot who always complains about your GMing yet never offers to GM
>that faggot about to get the boot

>Knowing a system well is one of the least important things for a freeform rp GM, because a freeform rp GM is more often than not ignoring the system, changing it, and otherwise not drawing attention to it.
ftfy

Sadly for you, that tends to work out better in the end, or was going to be shit regardless of what the GM was going to run.

If a GM lacks the ability to adapt a system they feel comfortable with, then his faults are far deeper than his decision to stick with one system.

Do you even recognize how stupid you have to be in order to be unable to retool any system? You hardly need be a programming expert, and even the effort involved is trivial.

Ehhh... I've seen some GMs be good in some systems and not in others, like they just didn't "get" fundamental concepts that were needed to be grasped.

Though I also knew two GMs that were both good and bad depending on the style of games they ran.

GMing is hard work, I try not to be too harsh unless they're seriously being dicks.

Purpose built tool > general tool/tool conscripted for the purpose.
Also means far less work, and far less fuzzy houserules. It's easier for the players in the long run, especially, and better, as it offers them experience with a grander ruleset.

You might want to wait until you actually know what you're talking about before trying to offer insight. New GMs and players enjoy the illusion of the system being an impartial stone edict, but that's just them being naive and hoping to redirect their responsibilities elsewhere.

Shitty Purpose built tool < Good General tool/tool conscripted for the purpose.

You're probably the kind of guy who buys fifteen dull, specialized knives for $200 when you can buy two good knives for $120 that do the job better.

>Also means far less work, and far less fuzzy houserules.

>not realizing that all rules are essentially fuzzy houserules

>Shitty Purpose built tool < Good General tool/tool conscripted for the purpose
RPGs rarely work that way, user, and you know it.
>You're probably the kind of guy who buys fifteen dull, specialized knives for $200
You clearly don't know shit about knives. I was a cook for some time. You have at least 5 distinct knives, you get a fucking whetstone to keep them sharp, and they will run you $200-800.

>needing five knives
What kind of diner did you work at?

This... This is bait, isn't it!
How droll!

I think you are both looking at wrong.

A generic system is still going to be a rather specialized tool. GURPS specializes in simulationist stuff, Savage Worlds is kinda gamist, FATE is mainly narrativist, despite all of them being generic.

You could run "vampire adventures" in all of them, and though it'd have a different focus, I daresay they'd probably work better than WoD in their own area.

By the same token, using the WoD dicepool system (because you like rolling a lot of d10s as a core mechanic I guess) for a non-vampire game is easy as fuck, and you don't really lose anything by doing so.

But running a simulationist game in FATE would be stupid, because it's not the right tool for the job.

So in that sense, having a wide library of knowledge for systems helps finding the right one for the tone of the game you want to run, but you really don't need to learn all of the 20 million fantasy heartbreakers just because they have slight differences in how they "fix the fighter" or "this one has a dragonborn race!", just one game that has *insert what you want out of D&D*, and has it right.

>the guy is me
I know tons of different systems but I'm a shit DM. Please end me.

>GNS theory
[vomits]

>
So in that sense, having a wide library of knowledge for systems helps finding the right one for the tone of the game you want to run, but you really don't need to learn all of the 20 million fantasy heartbreakers just because they have slight differences in how they "fix the fighter" or "this one has a dragonborn race!", just one game that has *insert what you want out of D&D*, and has it right.
Please name me 10 systems that aren't D&D and are popular and good. Go on, i'm waiting.

Geez, if you were just a troll, why didn't you just say so? Other people could have replied earnestly to you, y'know.

I'mean genuinely interested in what five knives you need. I'much a baker now, but I was a line cook off and on for five years, and I'very never seen the need for anything more than a good chefs knife, a cheap serrated kn9ve (because when it gets dull I'll replace it), AND MAYBE a boning knife if I'may doing any butchering. What others are vital? Sorry for being /ck

>i have no argument!
>therefore you're a big troll meanie :(

>GNS theory

I'm just using the descriptors, not the theory.

Or are you saying you'd use FATE for a gritty-realistic military game? I mean, you could, but it'd be the tone of the game, not the mechanicas that carry it

>Please name me 10 systems that aren't D&D and are popular and good.

... what does that have to do with anything I said? Especially popularity, why would that be relevant?

He posted the argument. You just said nuh-uh and then demanded an arbitrarily large number of subjective evaluations.

I can definitely say I'm not a good GM, but NO ONE ELSE WILL FUCKING STEP UP.

I'm not even the original guy who posted the argument. I just recognize when someone's being a dumb troll.

Depends how varied and comprehensive your work is.

At the very minimum, you're going to need a chef's knife, a serrated bread slicer, and a paring knife. You can get by on a subsistence level with just these.

If you're doing this as a career, though, all kinds of cooking with all kinds of ingredients, you're going to want to branch out and keep all sorts of things in your knife kit: filleting knife, boning knife, peeler, cleaver, scimitar, probably another length of chef's knife, a steel, and so on. And this is if you don't end up preferring esoteric knives over the standard knife for a given task.

Always keep in mind: almost any sharp knife can do almost any knife task. Preference, efficiency, and social traditions / pressures result in the variety of knives that see play.

Not to mention doubles!

Dnd is good for stereotypical classic fanstasy. Playing imperial guardsmen with it would require essentially rewriting the system and the end result would be objectively inferior to Only War.
Fate is great for playing as protagonists of a book or movie. A simulationist group will not enjoy it, and in this situation Gurps is logically better.
Wushu is specifically tooled for wuxia films and cannot be used for other genres. Crunchy space combat will not work.

Most good non-generic games speciffically reinforce the setting or settkngs with their underlying basic mechanics, and even generics like Gurps or Savage worlds do a good job of supporting the play style with rules. E.g. gurps suppprts simulationist games with crunchy rules, and fate book or comic characters with aspects and fate points.
Some games are most easilly ported to different settings than others, but even very generic games like gurps or fate support a specific play style, some are crunchy and sime fluddy.

>>You know you suck at GMing
>>You know most of them would be even worse at GMing, but you just don't care
>>The only fucking player that candidates to GM is the one that is unable to keep a compromise, his focus or properly plan a simple adventure.
>>MFW we spend around 10h to make three fights, two that lasted 2 turns and one that lasted 5 and was ended by GMPC fuckery
>>The rogue disarmed ~50 traps in the mean time, if he failed or the trap was triggered the whole group had to roll to avoid damage
>>regret your decision and goes back to being the GM
>>forever-GM-feelings.gif

>that guy who barely learns the rules of any system he plays and then mopes anytime his character is ineffective

If he's such a shitty GM why don't you run something instead? At least he tries. I hate GMing because I'm a garbage GM, but my players tolerate me and GMing poorly is better than no game at all. I would quite like it if one of my players would volunteer to GM but none of them show interest or they never do anything if they do show interest.

Most purpose built RPGs are complete dogshit though.
The problem isn't adapting a game that you are comfortable with, the problem is the idiots that use 3.5 for everything. If you use a system that does nothing well, adaptions are obviously going to be complete shit.

>Dnd is go+od for stereotypical classic fantasy. Playing imperial guardsmen with it would require essentially rewriting the system and the end result would be objectively inferior to Only War.

Not really. You could easily run an imperial guard game using the d20 system just by using low level characters as the base, and then you could avoid all the bullshit of the d% system.

You might prefer Total War, but that's just your subjective opinion, not objective as you claim.

In general, you don't really seem to appreciate just how fluid game systems are.

And instead get all the bullshit of d20? I don't fucking think so.

I feel ya.

Sure, I could
>modify the classes available
>limit levels
>rewrite the magic system
>create new equipment
>stat out the new bestiary
Or I could play Only* War and get everything done for me. This before all the other minor rules that help reinforce genre.

95% of that is just refluffing and knowing not to use every option available at once.

And you can completely avoid having to play in a warhammer tie-in game that was written by amateur designers hoping to cash-in on rabid fans.

Instead you get to play a Fallout game that got retooled midway through development when WotC acquired TSR and was developed by incompetents who had no idea how their system worked. Clearly an improvement.

On the other hand
>that DM who is great but only does it for one system that he knows in and out

>95% refluffing
>redoing the magic system
Pick one.

I suspect this is the opinion of someone who doesn't know any systems well but thinks they're brilliant enough to cover it up.

The scary thing here is that you just admitted you can't tell the difference and yet you're still talking.

The key takeaway is that you're somehow learning the wrong parts.of the systems. Start with "where is this trying to go, what is the end state it wants" and work backwards from there.

That's only true if you're using a system that is absolutely terrible for what you're trying to do.

We'll stop using GNS when someone comes up with a better model. Until then, choke on six billion dicks.

>The guy who craves abuse so much that he tries a 10th system with the same shitty GM.

>Please name me 10 systems that aren't D&D and are popular and good. Go on, i'm waiting.

Why are you holding other systems to higher standards than D&D? Or are you honestly saying that D&D fulfills the "good" criteria? Jesus.

>Hey guyze, have another edition of "incredibly out of touch with modern fantasy, superheroes with swords: The game (for autists and children)

>and knowing not to use every option available at once.

You can't just chop up a sentence to try and make a point.

Even if you cut out all the magic in D&D you're still left with an enormous amount of material, and that's just talking about cutting it entirely instead of just refluffing it.

Holy shit
Please tell me she does porn

and you're the guy who cuts up a whole chicken with a paring knife

go back to your forum kiddo

I'm the guy who learns ten different systems because it's fun.

The fact that I'm a shitty GM regardless of what I run is entirely incidental.

>D&D
>not good
Its popularity says otherwise. Come on, compare D&D and hipster shit systems on Roll20.

As we all know, Call of Duty and League of Legends are the best video games ever made.

They're both a lot better than the 32-bit FPS you've been building in your garage to play on the Nintendo VirtuaBoy are.

>real housewives of atlanta
>not good
Its popularity says otherwise.

I'm sorry people are not watching your own reality show about a guy who sits in his basement alone, complaining about how no one wants to play all the games he likes, that he can't convince anyone else to like. because he always starts out by saying "Yeah, well, the games you like are shit, and the games I like are much better."

But I never have trouble getting my players to play other games as they aren't children.

Never having trouble getting your players to do something because you never have any players to begin with is hardly a point of pride.

I have half a dozen people that I can generally convince to play whatever weird retroclone I am interested in with. I'm sorry to say this, but popularity doesn't correspond with quality, that is a logical fallacy.

It's not a perfect correlation but it exists. The crowd doesn't always get it right but before you bet against the crowd you better be damn sure you know something they don't.

I certainly know about tons of other RPGs with interesting settings and mechanics, so I suppose that counts.

>I have half a dozen people that I can generally convince to play whatever weird retroclone I am interested in with. I'm sorry to say this, but popularity doesn't correspond with quality, that is a logical fallacy.

>six people can be convinced to play a game.

>That means the correlation between quality and popularity is a myth

Somewhere, there was a leap in logic.

I was addressing the claim that I didn't have anyone to play with, and the second sentence was addressing the claim that something being popular means that it is good. Try improving your reading comprehension.

>I mainly care about having labels I can tribalistically cling to and/or buzzwords I can throw around
>Who cares if it makes sense or can stand up to the most basic scrutiny, I just want something I can understand in 30 seconds or less

You seem to have missed the humor directed at you.

And, more importantly, you think that your word is really important for some reason.

>I can't articulate why it makes me REEEEEE so I'll just pretend it's obvious and everyone agrees with me and hope that no one calls me out on it.

>Implying I'm the one who's butthurt here
GNS theory is facile at best. Everyone knows what the words are supposed to mean on paper, but when you try to apply the terms it doesn't make any sense. Barring a small number of deliberately abstract ones like Time Wizards, every system attempts to model reality in some form. No system is going to be able to perfectly model reality, so they all have some amount of abstraction to make for a better game. Every campaign that goes on for long enough is going to have some kind of narrative emerge, and game mechanics will always contribute to that narrative in some form. "Narrativist" just becomes a dumping ground for any system that doesn't fit neatly into the other two categories, putting a great big band-aid on the theory to hide the fact that it doesn't make sense. The three terms can sometimes be a useful shorthand when talking about the purpose individual mechanics are supposed to serve within the greater whole (especially a sliding scale of gamist vs simulationist when talking about levels of abstraction), but beyond that you have to force so many square pegs into round holes that it's no longer useful for anything beyond the reasons I already mentioned.

That's me tho

Except for games like Apocalypse World and Fate which are explicitly narrative games and have explicitly no mechanics modeling "reality" of any kind, save for the "reality" of the fiction and genre?

I get your point that most systems are a mixture of all three, but there are obvious examples of games which fall most heavily (or in the case of the above-mentioned and things like Fiasco, most entirely) into one camp or another.

>That guy who posts shitty strawmen of opinions he disagrees with so other autists can blow them out and feel good about themselves

It's Richard Petty, what do you expect? All he does is make appeals to popularity and hilarious bullshit solipsist arguments.

>Except for games like Apocalypse World and Fate which are explicitly narrative games and have explicitly no mechanics modeling "reality" of any kind, save for the "reality" of the fiction and genre?
But that's not true at all, and you clearly have never read a single page of the Fate rulebook (not sure about AW, since I've never read it). That or you don't understand that all systems only ever model the "reality" of the entirely fictional world in which the game takes place in.

Again, the model only works when we start from the assumption it works and force everything to fit within it.

You've got to stop forcing your Petty meme, kid. It's not going to catch on.

>the guy that learns different systems because it's fun
>runs mostly D&D5e & LotFP because it's commonly known and easy to get groups for
>Still has a bunch of other interesting systems to try with his friends that enjoy learning and playing new systems
>has fun game nights and is never wanting for games