OK Veeky Forums. I've got a question for you, and it's a doozy: what are some GOOD RPGs? I mean genuinely good...

OK Veeky Forums. I've got a question for you, and it's a doozy: what are some GOOD RPGs? I mean genuinely good, none of that "it's popular, therefore it's good" shit.

What, as in, objectively?

Because objective quality doesn't really exist.

>hiding behind subjectivity

That's an excuse for lazy thinking.

Apocalypse World (Not my thing, but it's good)
Ironclaw/Urban Jungle
Legends of the Wulin
Unknown Armies (third edition in particular)

>if you want an actually good d20 system for fantasy adventures
FantasyCraft

>if you want a good game In general
Burning Wheel

I adore LotW, but it deserves more than a few caveats.

When you get the damn thing working? It's a superb RPG. Mechanically interesting, very varied and has the best combat of any game I've ever played.

Actually getting to that point is a fucking nightmare, far more than it has any right to be. While it is an atypical system which might make learning it a little harder than usual for an experienced roleplayer, having to unlearn certain assumptions most other games make, the godawful editing and layout of the core book is beyond defending.

A lot of the mechanics are hidden in fluff sections or never directly stated at all, there's a lot of internal contradictions and bizarre little remnants, along with a few balance problems that show the game could have done with a lot more editing and testing before release.

The Half Burnt Manual helps with some of this, but it doesn't make the state of the core book any better.

tl;dr I love LotW but there are legitimate reasons to not call it a good game, looking at the whole package.

I really don't see what the fuss about Fantasycraft is. It looks like another fiddly, overly heavy fantasy RPG.

Savage Worlds is a decent generic system. Paranoia is great and can be easily calibrated towards different playing styles. DnD 4e is good for combat balance, iffy for non-combat though.

Agreed. It ought to be beyond dispute that you can be conditionally objective, e.g "If you want a quick but realistic cyberpunk system for veteran players then X does that particular thing better than Y".

People keep confusing 'objective' with 'absolute'.

Is there any particular reason you couldn't just inelegantly mash a good combat system like dnd 4e with a good social roleplaying system (I'd give an example but I haven't played many of these)?

>Agreed. It ought to be beyond dispute that you can be conditionally objective, e.g "If you want a quick but realistic cyberpunk system for veteran players then X does that particular thing better than Y".

Truthfully, I reject the idea of objectivity entirely, I just don't let it get me down from holding values or assertions because total subjectivity is more or less a philosophical cul-de-sac, once you've gone in there you either leave or go nowhere.

The firm ground to stand on is saying 'I believe that...' and similar.

There's nothing wrong with having faith in your own opinions, to argue for them and stand by them. But people complaining about objectivity generally comes up when some asshole claims that their opinion is objective true and overrides conflicting opinions though some overwrought justification or another.

Part of the problem with 4e is it's never really clear how combat abilities would work out of game. E.g a ninja has an encounter power that involves him creating a rope. Does he have to already have a rope? Can he create rope out of thin air? Could I spend a day making ropes ex nihilo and then sell them so I can afford that pack mule we wanted?

4e is full of this. DMs have to house-rule a lot, which either leads to inconsistency or a big fat sheaf of house rules. If you don't mind crossing these bridges a lot then there's no reason you couldn't hack in a social roleplaying system from something else.

>some asshole claims that their opinion is objective true and overrides conflicting opinions though some overwrought justification or another.

This. I get pretty tired of people trying to transmute opinion into fact via the magic of blithermancy.

There are guidelines in the various DMGs for adjudicating that, although a lot of it can be dealt with via 'don't be an asshole' and acknowledging the nature of powers, the whole 'disassociative mechanic' thing (Not that it's at all unique or original to 4e, despite the people who complain about it so much.)

I dunno why that would be a problem unless either the player or the DM is That Guy. I've played in a few games of 4e and of systems heavily based on 4e and never had an issue with combat abilities being used outside of combat.
Main problem we had is that the game, with the rules being heavily tilted towards combat, turned more into a tactical combat game than a roleplaying game.

I think Anima is great, but is not easy to learn

I've been playing Anima recently, and the whole system feels weird and disjointed to me. You have all this awesome, over the top high flying action stuff... And an injury system which is brutally punishing, liable to cripple characters for long periods of time, at least at low levels without good amounts of regeneration or magical healing, which is pretty scarce.

Little things like that are all throughout the system, things that feel like they were directly imported from some gritty low fantasy game that seem very odd compared to how over the top high fantasy everything else is.

It's a good game, I've enjoyed my time with it, but it is a weird one.

Paranoia, GURPS, Song of Swords, Delta Green and Night Shift are all my favorites. I like Dark Heresy but she has problems.

Dresden files is really good, both for emulating the setting and as a relatively balanced campaign.

Then again, anything based off of Fate is good. It's both general enough to be used for any kind of setting, but the aspects allow for a lot more specificity when you want it.

yeah i really wanted to like it, it had some interesting thing but seem overcomplicated

May as well throw in my lot with Strike! (as per usual).

Is it perfect? Nah. It's a good example of the "top down" design that's finally making its way back to RPGs tho (along with PbtA games).

I just finished a game using Mythras/Runequest 6. Would 100% recommend the system, but I can't speak to the setting as it was homebrewed.

Ironclaw is a good system if you don't have any super furry or super antifurry members of the group.