Other system suggestions?

[Tanuki Tales]

At the behest of a friend to try broadening my tastes, I'm looking for suggestions at game systems to try outside of 3.X and Pathfinder.

My criteria are as such:

• Low cost for entry: I can't afford to sink ninety dollars into a core rule system at this point in my life, which is why Pathfinder was attractive (since almost everything ends up free eventually on their SRD). The cheaper, the better.
• Balanced and easy to run: I'm feeling a bit of fatigue with the balancing act that is running Pathfinder, which is probably a leading factor to me burning out so easy when playing it. So as little system mastery required to run a smooth game (but not 4.0's design assumption of "all encounters should be level appropriate), the better
• Wide options: What I love about Pathfinder and 3.X in general is the bounty of customization options. So the fewer system constraint on playing or building any possible concepts, the better.
• Equal parts combat and non-combat: Pathfinder and 3.X were always heavily combat based, with some non-combat fiddly bits bolted on. I'd like something a little more balanced on both ends, without sacrificing doing combat (which is one of the reasons I never played White Wolf).
• Not tied to a setting or metaplot: I would like it to be flexible enough for me to create my own worlds and own settings.
• Not necessarily tied to a certain power expectation: This is probably the least necessary, but I'd appreciate a system that could run the gamut from Brienne of Tarth to Legolas to Hercules. One of the reasons I never moved to DnD Next is that I didn't agree with it tethering characters to not rise above what they decided was the level of "heroic fantasy". Something that gets there slower than the sharp quadratic curve of 3.X/Pathfinder, but I'd like it to still be an option down the line.

Thanks in advanced.

[BayardSPSR]

Burning Wheel might be interesting, Torchbearer is probably too limited in power level, Dungeon World is probably too limited in options, and Fate Core is free, but all of these seem like things that might be worth investigating. If you're interested in exploring old-school styles, Labyrinth Lord, Swords and Wizardry, and Lamentations of the Flame Princess can all be had for free.

At some point, someone may recommend GURPS, but I will not be that person since I have no direct exposure to it and am not qualified to speak on its merits.

And to clarify: you're still looking for something fantasy-themed, centered on character progression through what we describe as "heroic fantasy" and beyond, and with a substantial focus on running balanced combat?

[Tanuki Tales]

And to clarify: you're still looking for something fantasy-themed, centered on character progression through what we describe as "heroic fantasy" and beyond, and with a substantial focus on running balanced combat?

More or less.

I guess I'm basically looking for a better balanced, easier to run Pathfinder with some better out of combat support. I love the flavor, I love the depth of building options, but I'm a slave to the reality of what the Tier System represents. I just don't have it in me anymore to balance and mitigate what the base rules failed to do from the beginning. I also fall victim to the "sorting algorithm of evil" the game follows and the innate inability to determine if Goblin X just have warrior levels or is a super optimized death machine 5 levels above the party.

[Vitruviansquid]

Savage Worlds sounds like it fits all these bills.

You just need to buy the rulebook, which is available as a PDF.

It's very easy to run.

I... am not really sure "dearth" means what you think it means, but if in fact you want there to be many character options, Savage Worlds is not class-based and, more importantly, is really easy to create homebrew options for.

You create your own setting or metaplot unless you wish to supplement your experience with one of the established Savage Worlds settings books that are out there.

Unfortunately, Savage Worlds games tend to have a fairly constant power expectation.

[Tanuki Tales]

I've been using that word incorrectly for years. -sigh-

[slaydemons]

I am no expert on the game, because well I have never played it only made characters in it. M&M 3e seems to be nice, there isn't any standard levels, there is an srd for it and the guy I was going to play with basically just said "Fiddlesticks to the base setting its basically super heroes." those aren't exact wordings mind you but close enough. in the group I made characters with everyone had a different power level (basically points) I had the lowest number of points yet my character felt perfect for what I wanted in my hero. Not sure how well it would do with other setting types as fantasy system is fairly straight forward it seems. the biggest problem would be making characters as it will take more time then D&D.

[AnBe]

Have you considered making your own tabletop RPG system? Ever since I first started playing D&D 3.5, I liked what it had to offer but it wasn't difficult to notice its shortcomings. So, I attempted to create my own RPG system and have been at it for years. At first, it may seem daunting, but you'll learn and get better at it. It is a very intellectually stimulating exercise.

[goto124]

EDIT: Oh, you referred to DnD 5e as DnD Next. My bad, I Ctrl + F'd for the number 5 and got nothing.

[Tanuki Tales]

Have you considered making your own tabletop RPG system? Ever since I first started playing D&D 3.5, I liked what it had to offer but it wasn't difficult to notice its shortcomings. So, I attempted to create my own RPG system and have been at it for years. At first, it may seem daunting, but you'll learn and get better at it. It is a very intellectually stimulating exercise.

That is more involved and time consuming than I'm willing to devote myself to, even before getting into the necessity of investigating other game systems for comparisons/inspirations, playtesting and balancing and then finding playgroup(s) (since "homebrewed systems" tend to be maligned).

[Anonymouswizard]

Basic Fantasy is free and very similar to D&D (because it's essentially a heavily houseruled old BD&B). I personally haven't run it, because I don't like class and level systems, but it's worth a look.

At some point, someone may recommend GURPS, but I will not be that person since I have no direct exposure to it and am not qualified to speak on its merits.

GURPS is weird. It's actually a lot simpler than people give it credit for, it uses a much simpler core system than D&D does. It does, however, have a very high entry level due to all the lists, there are tons of advantages, disadvantages, and skills, and you'll probably have to work through many of them before you have a suitable character. It also requires a decent investment to start, seeing as you'll probably want not only the core set but another book or two to better use whatever genre you want (especially magic if running fantasy).

I guess I'm basically looking for a better balanced, easier to run Pathfinder with some better out of combat support. I love the flavor, I love the depth of building options, but I'm a slave to the reality of what the Tier System represents. I just don't have it in me anymore to balance and mitigate what the base rules failed to do from the beginning. I also fall victim to the "sorting algorithm of evil" the game follows and the innate inability to determine if Goblin X just have warrior levels or is a super optimized death machine 5 levels above the party.

I'm personally rather impressed by The Dark Eye and plan to pick up a hardback once a) they come out and b) I have the money, but it's the opposite of what you want. It's incredibly complex once you get down to it, and has a large list of skills and a rather complex rolling system, but I suggest having a look as it avoids at least some of the sorting algorithm of evil (characters start relatively beefy but then don't automatically become tougher). The corebook doesn't have much in the way of a Bestiary though.

Have you considered making your own tabletop RPG system? Ever since I first started playing D&D 3.5, I liked what it had to offer but it wasn't difficult to notice its shortcomings. So, I attempted to create my own RPG system and have been at it for years. At first, it may seem daunting, but you'll learn and get better at it. It is a very intellectually stimulating exercise.

If you're doing this, I suggest playing several systems, otherwise you'll likely end up with a Fantasy Heartbreaker. I'm currently writing my own game(s) though, I'm just at a loss as to how I should handle vehicles.

[ImNotTrevor]

At the behest of a friend to try broadening my tastes, I'm looking for suggestions at game systems to try outside of 3.X and Pathfinder.

My criteria are as such:

• Low cost for entry: I can't afford to sink ninety dollars into a core rule system at this point in my life, which is why Pathfinder was attractive (since almost everything ends up free eventually on their SRD). The cheaper, the better.
• Balanced and easy to run: I'm feeling a bit of fatigue with the balancing act that is running Pathfinder, which is probably a leading factor to me burning out so easy when playing it. So as little system mastery required to run a smooth game (but not 4.0's design assumption of "all encounters should be level appropriate), the better
• Wide options: What I love about Pathfinder and 3.X in general is the bounty of customization options. So the fewer system constraint on playing or building any possible concepts, the better.
• Equal parts combat and non-combat: Pathfinder and 3.X were always heavily combat based, with some non-combat fiddly bits bolted on. I'd like something a little more balanced on both ends, without sacrificing doing combat (which is one of the reasons I never played White Wolf).
• Not tied to a setting or metaplot: I would like it to be flexible enough for me to create my own worlds and own settings.
• Not necessarily tied to a certain power expectation: This is probably the least necessary, but I'd appreciate a system that could run the gamut from Brienne of Tarth to Legolas to Hercules. One of the reasons I never moved to DnD Next is that I didn't agree with it tethering characters to not rise above what they decided was the level of "heroic fantasy". Something that gets there slower than the sharp quadratic curve of 3.X/Pathfinder, but I'd like it to still be an option down the line.

Thanks in advanced.

I will note that 2 and 3 will be VERY hard to find together. More options means it's harder to balance, there's more work to be done for prep, etc.

Basically, wanting a simplified Pathfinder means wanting Pathfinder with less stuff in it.

I can put in a vouch for Dungeon World, as the homebrew options for that game tend to be pretty balanced and intuitive. (It's hard to screw up a Dungeon World class) but I'd recommend running it a couple times before getting into those. Of course, the classes within Dungeon World are very internally varied, so there's that additional advantage. (Ie, Fighter A and Fighter B may be the same class and still feel very different based on the moves selected.)

As far as GM freedom... infinite. From scaleless wyverns to strange spider monsters with long legs ending in baby hands, the GM can make any situation they can think of and DW will be unphased 90% of the time, and 99% of the time otherwise it's solved with a quick custom move. (Which are hella easy to make)

Then again, it's more like OD&D than 3.P, so...

I dunno. "Pathfinder, but simplified, but still with a lot of stuff" is probably not a thing that exists currently. (Because you could probably just hack Pathfinder for similar results)

[Thrudd]

D6 Fantasy might be worth a look. It is free on the Open D6 RPG website.
It is by West End Games, based on the system from their Star Wars game.
It runs easily, I had a long running Star Wars game in which I improvised regularly. It is more cinematic in feel than D&D/PF, but it sounds like you might want that when you say you want more balance of combat/non-combat stuff.

No classes, no levels, tons of options for creating unique characters.
It is a little like GURPS, in that there is a longish list of advantages and disadvantages and skills and abilities to choose from, but it sounds like that's what you want.
There is no limit on character power level. The game recommends the starting number of build points, but there is no reason you can't assign more if you want more powerful characters.

It is a truly generic fantasy game, there is no setting. That means there is some work on the front-end as you design your setting, if you don't want to use the generic races and magic system in the book. The game assumes you will design your own races and magic system and monsters, and tells you how to do it.

The combat has a lot of options and actions, though it is meant to be run more cinematic than tactical. However, movement rates and weapon ranges are given in meters, which means you could still use minis to track position in a battle if you wanted.

I think it could tick all the boxes, although it will be a significant change from Pathfinder.


The many OSR/retro clone games are much simpler than Pathfinder and easier to run, and most are free or inexpensive, but being based on old D&D they will not give the character options you want. Adventurer, Conqueror, King has guidelines for building your own classes in the Player's Companion Supplement. It isn't free, the pdfs are $10 on drivethrough RPG, but it is one of the more customizable OSR games I can think of.

[comk59]

Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that you're looking for a D&D like experience, I'd have suggested Prowlers and Paragons. It's an absurdly inexpensive but fairly well put together superhero rpg. And, despite actually trying to, I haven't found a way to break it. Unfortunately, it has minimal progression and is about superheros, so doesn't really fit your criteria.

Have you looked at 13th age? It may have what you're looking for.

[BlueHerring]

I'm going to say that Mutants and Masterminds 3e is your best bet. It's typically marketed as superhero stuff, but there's no harm in just fluffing things up and calling it fantasy.

Low cost for entry: I can't afford to sink ninety dollars into a core rule system at this point in my life, which is why Pathfinder was attractive (since almost everything ends up free eventually on their SRD). The cheaper, the better.

It's available for free here.

Balanced and easy to run: I'm feeling a bit of fatigue with the balancing act that is running Pathfinder, which is probably a leading factor to me burning out so easy when playing it. So as little system mastery required to run a smooth game (but not 4.0's design assumption of "all encounters should be level appropriate), the better

Mutants and Masterminds has Power Levels, which dictate the upper limit of your character's strength. That being said, however, balancing the game as a GM is a matter of trial and error, until you're proficient with the system.

[*]Wide options: What I love about Pathfinder and 3.X in general is the bounty of customization options. So the fewer system constraint on playing or building any possible concepts, the better.

The sky is your limit. M&M isn't limited by fluff descriptions in your classes. In fact, your character descriptions exist alongside your mechanics - as both Descriptors and Complications, which are like fluff companions to your crunch. Powers are also incredibly robust, and can do a wide variety of things.

[*]Equal parts combat and non-combat: Pathfinder and 3.X were always heavily combat based, with some non-combat fiddly bits bolted on. I'd like something a little more balanced on both ends, without sacrificing doing combat (which is one of the reasons I never played White Wolf).

Again, the biggest part of Mutants and Masterminds are the powers, which offer unique bits to tack on. While, yes, it is primarily based around combat, there's plenty of challenges you can create without resorting to combat.

Not tied to a setting or metaplot: I would like it to be flexible enough for me to create my own worlds and own settings.

It's a generic system, so no problem there.

Not necessarily tied to a certain power expectation: This is probably the least necessary, but I'd appreciate a system that could run the gamut from Brienne of Tarth to Legolas to Hercules. One of the reasons I never moved to DnD Next is that I didn't agree with it tethering characters to not rise above what they decided was the level of "heroic fantasy". Something that gets there slower than the sharp quadratic curve of 3.X/Pathfinder, but I'd like it to still be an option down the line.

Again, that's what Power Levels are for. They establish the upper limits for your main statistics, and force everyone to stay in line of one another. And, you can always upgrade power level during play.

The big problem with M&M is system mastery. While it isn't as hard as D&D/PF, it takes a bit of time and experimentation to understand how the rules work.

[Tanuki Tales]

Since GURPS was mentioned, I never understood how you build enemies that are reasonable obstacles to the party when dealing with fewer or greater numbers than there are players

Edit: This in regards to point based games in general

[Milo v3]

Another vote to Mutants and Masterminds.

[ImNotTrevor]

Allow me to give some cautionary advice about M&M since this forum is heavily skewed in favor of that system and tends to overlook its problems, so let me point out a couple.

Low cost for entry: I can't afford to sink ninety dollars into a core rule system at this point in my life, which is why Pathfinder was attractive (since almost everything ends up free eventually on their SRD). The cheaper, the better.
Balanced and easy to run: I'm feeling a bit of fatigue with the balancing act that is running Pathfinder, which is probably a leading factor to me burning out so easy when playing it. So as little system mastery required to run a smooth game (but not 4.0's design assumption of "all encounters should be level appropriate), the better

The first is fine, the second we start having problems.
While M&M is pretty well balanced (as with all systems there are ways to break it, but it has fewer examples of this than other systems), It is not beginner-friendly, and I would be really hesitant to dump it on your players.

Equal parts combat and non-combat: Pathfinder and 3.X were always heavily combat based, with some non-combat fiddly bits bolted on. I'd like something a little more balanced on both ends, without sacrificing doing combat (which is one of the reasons I never played White Wolf).

M&M is based around Superheroes but can technically be used for anything. Hence, it is very combat focused. Its social rules are nothing special, and aren't particularly more fleshed out than Pathfinder's. Games like Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World blow it out of the water in this regard (being highly focused on social interaction.)

Not tied to a setting or metaplot: I would like it to be flexible enough for me to create my own worlds and own settings.

While you can technically use M&M for anything, it required some amount of GM policing character builds, since it is built primarily for Superheroes.

Not necessarily tied to a certain power expectation: This is probably the least necessary, but I'd appreciate a system that could run the gamut from Brienne of Tarth to Legolas to Hercules. One of the reasons I never moved to DnD Next is that I didn't agree with it tethering characters to not rise above what they decided was the level of "heroic fantasy". Something that gets there slower than the sharp quadratic curve of 3.X/Pathfinder, but I'd like it to still be an option down the line.[/list]

I may be misinformed on this one, but powerlevels in M&M are relatively fixed, last time I checked, and my experience with the SRD had very sparse rules for progression. Take that as you will.

M&M is good at what it's good at, but I wouldn't recommend it for this purpose.

[Anonymouswizard]

Since GURPS was mentioned, I never understood how you build enemies that are reasonable obstacles to the party when dealing with fewer or greater numbers than there are players

Edit: This in regards to point based games in general

Short answer? You generally forget about reasonable obstacles, as how the PCs approach it can massively alter the difficulty. I tend to use the rough guide of 'slightly less combat skills than the PCs', but there is no real way to judge it.

Allow me to give some cautionary advice about M&M since this forum is heavily skewed in favor of that system and tends to overlook its problems, so let me point out a couple.

Oh, totally in agreement with you here, you can't lodge a complain at M&M here without someone going 'you were doing it wrong' (...which my group actually was, but it doesn't address my complaints of characters all acting the same way).

The first is fine, the second we start having problems.
While M&M is pretty well balanced (as with all systems there are ways to break it, but it has fewer examples of this than other systems), It is not beginner-friendly, and I would be really hesitant to dump it on your players.

Eh, M&M's relationship with balance is sketchy at best. While there's no options that are truly terrible, there are ones that are so high above the power curve as to be unbalancing (a lot of the stuff you can do with Summon, Variable can also be problematic), so it requires a lot of GM oversight. That said, it's generally easy to work out what power effects would be overpowered in your game and ban them, but I agree that it's not a game to dump on your players.

M&M is based around Superheroes but can technically be used for anything. Hence, it is very combat focused. Its social rules are nothing special, and aren't particularly more fleshed out than Pathfinder's. Games like Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World blow it out of the water in this regard (being highly focused on social interaction.)

You forgot to mention that it's also at a rather high power level. Hard to do just dudes in armour with M&M, it's firmly in the levels 8+ of the D&D experience.

While you can technically use M&M for anything, it required some amount of GM policing character builds, since it is built primarily for Superheroes.

The one thing people will agree on with this board is that in M&M the GM has to police character builds, even for superheroes. The system is a Munchkin's dream.

I may be misinformed on this one, but powerlevels in M&M are relatively fixed, last time I checked, and my experience with the SRD had very sparse rules for progression. Take that as you will.

3PP per session to spend as you will. A suggestion to raise the power level and caps every 15PP.

M&M is good at what it's good at, but I wouldn't recommend it for this purpose.

Agreed here.

[Reynaert]

At the behest of a friend to try broadening my tastes, I'm looking for suggestions at game systems to try outside of 3.X and Pathfinder.

I haven't seen Fantasy AGE suggested yet, so I will:

My criteria are as such:

Low cost for entry: I can't afford to sink ninety dollars into a core rule system at this point in my life, which is why Pathfinder was attractive (since almost everything ends up free eventually on their SRD). The cheaper, the better.

Core rulebook (which is player handbook and GM guide in one) is around thirty dollars.

Balanced and easy to run: I'm feeling a bit of fatigue with the balancing act that is running Pathfinder, which is probably a leading factor to me burning out so easy when playing it. So as little system mastery required to run a smooth game (but not 4.0's design assumption of "all encounters should be level appropriate), the better

The system is very simple, every check is a 3d6 roll with appropriate modifiers. The extra options come from stunt dice; basically if you roll doubles you can do some kind of nifty extra action/modification.

Wide options: What I love about Pathfinder and 3.X in general is the bounty of customization options. So the fewer system constraint on playing or building any possible concepts, the better.

Well this is where you will have to be creative. All the options are very generic, and it is up to the players/gm to fill in the details. This is especially clear in the magic/spells section, where there are (IIRC) 48 spells, all with more or less generic effects. It's up to the player to fill in how they are casting them (deity, wizardry, warlocking, wuxia-ki-magic, etc. you have to figure it out on your own)

Equal parts combat and non-combat: Pathfinder and 3.X were always heavily combat based, with some non-combat fiddly bits bolted on. I'd like something a little more balanced on both ends, without sacrificing doing combat (which is one of the reasons I never played White Wolf).

Fantasy AGE divides it into three pillars: Combat, Social and Explore, and it has rules for all of them. There are even optional/advanced rules for using the stunt dice outside of combat, with a whole list of separate stunts for social encounters, and another for exploration encounters.

Not tied to a setting or metaplot: I would like it to be flexible enough for me to create my own worlds and own settings.

Fantasy AGE is the setting-agnostic spinoff of Dragon AGE. It has even been used (with only slight modifications) in a sci-fi like setting.

Not necessarily tied to a certain power expectation: This is probably the least necessary, but I'd appreciate a system that could run the gamut from Brienne of Tarth to Legolas to Hercules. One of the reasons I never moved to DnD Next is that I didn't agree with it tethering characters to not rise above what they decided was the level of "heroic fantasy". Something that gets there slower than the sharp quadratic curve of 3.X/Pathfinder, but I'd like it to still be an option down the line.

This is the only one I'm really not sure about, as I have thus far never played epic stuff in any system, let alone AGE.

[2D8HP]

You forgot to mention that it's also at a rather high power level. Hard to do just dudes in armour with M&M, it's firmly in the levels 8+ of the D&D experience.

Thanks for the tip. I've seen plenty of recommendations for Mutants and Masterminds at this Forum, and I saw that they had a Fantasy supplement, but I hesitated because I really do prefer Swords and Sorcery to the comic book superhero genre, and I just didn't know how well it could be used for the stories I'm interested in, your saying it's similar to 8+ D&D clinches it for me.
Even in 1e, and definitely in 3.x and 5e, higher level D&D while fun to get to, is most definitely not where I want the story to start.

[CharonsHelper]

If you want to stick to d20, 5e is better balanced than 3.x (though really Pathfinder isn't bad if you stick to the first 6-8 levels).

While not quite fantasy (other than future fantasy) you might also take a gander at Star Wars: Saga Edition. It's probably the best balanced d20 system I've ever seen. (Stay away from the Revised Edition though, its Jedi have the same balance issues as 3.x casters. Saga Edition fixed that by, in the fluff, Jedi are all padawans until at least level 7.)

If you're doing this, I suggest playing several systems, otherwise you'll likely end up with a Fantasy Heartbreaker. I'm currently writing my own game(s) though, I'm just at a loss as to how I should handle vehicles.

I'm with you. I made vehicle rules for my sci-fi RPG, and they're not any worse than any other RPG vehicle rules I've seen, but I've never seen ones I've liked either. >.<

I'm actually very happy with my rules for mecha & flyers. The mecha basically work like infantry with scaling rules (no piloting because mecha hook into your nervous system) and flyers can be more abstract than the base rules due to being on another plane.

If you do come up with any awesome ideas on the vehicle front, give me a ping and we'll brainstorm.

[Thrudd]

Since GURPS was mentioned, I never understood how you build enemies that are reasonable obstacles to the party when dealing with fewer or greater numbers than there are players

Edit: This in regards to point based games in general

It pretty much the same principle as in D&D or any game. Enemies and monsters usually have only partial "builds" with a minimum amount of info necessary to interact or fight with them. Only really important npcs should get a full character build. If you want a gang of weak enemies, give them only the combat relevant stats and weapons at average level. A big monster is made harder to damage or can take more hits or can attack multiple targets in a round or all of those.

[Anonymouswizard]

Thanks for the tip. I've seen plenty of recommendations for Mutants and Masterminds at this Forum, and I saw that they had a Fantasy supplement, but I hesitated because I really do prefer Swords and Sorcery to the comic book superhero genre, and I just didn't know how well it could be used for the stories I'm interested in, your saying it's similar to 8+ D&D clinches it for me.
Even in 1e, and definitely in 3.x and 5e, higher level D&D while fun to get to, is most definitely not where I want the story to start.

It's not that you can't do it at such a low level, it's that it requires enough restrictions and changing of assumptions that it's just not as good as GURPS (which does the entire spectrum of 'dude in armour' but is pretty bad at superheroes).

I'm with you. I made vehicle rules for my sci-fi RPG, and they're not any worse than any other RPG vehicle rules I've seen, but I've never seen ones I've liked either. >.<

I'm actually very happy with my rules for mecha & flyers. The mecha basically work like infantry with scaling rules (no piloting because mecha hook into your nervous system) and flyers can be more abstract than the base rules due to being on another plane.

If you do come up with any awesome ideas on the vehicle front, give me a ping and we'll brainstorm.

I will, I'm currently debating if I should have specific rules for locomotion types (as having a bunch of slaved bots is actually a setting assumption), which will cause the vehicles system to change to accommodate such rules. I'm also running at a more realistic setting level than you are, with DNIs just being another connection type and mecha being restricted to spider tanks (because spider tanks are cool and plausible).

The problem I'm having is vehicle rules tend to be clunky, and I've tried very hard to streamline things (I use a system for hacking similar to Eclipse Phase , just much simpler and more limited). I've managed to solve the problem I was having with software bots, but physical bots are entangled with the vehicles system and it's going to make both worse than I'd like. But vehicles rules are almost always rather klunky.

[Tanuki Tales]

It pretty much the same principle as in D&D or any game. Enemies and monsters usually have only partial "builds" with a minimum amount of info necessary to interact or fight with them. Only really important npcs should get a full character build. If you want a gang of weak enemies, give them only the combat relevant stats and weapons at average level. A big monster is made harder to damage or can take more hits or can attack multiple targets in a round or all of those.

So you just eyeball it with point based games then?

I was wondering if it was something like "take points/ranks/merits had by entire party and divide by enemies being faced".

[mikeejimbo]

At some point, someone may recommend GURPS, but I will not be that person since I have no direct exposure to it and am not qualified to speak on its merits.

GURPS tends to require system mastery and/or prep-work. And it's not exactly cheap, except for GURPS Lite, the free introductory thing.

Other than that it ticks all the boxes.

[mikeejimbo]

Since GURPS was mentioned, I never understood how you build enemies that are reasonable obstacles to the party when dealing with fewer or greater numbers than there are players

Edit: This in regards to point based games in general

It's tricky, and more of an art than a science. Christopher Rice has a Pyramid article that helps GMs balance combat encounters, but even then as Anonymouswizard said, PC approach can greatly alter difficulty.

With that in mind, GURPS (and similar systems) aren't the type of thing you just pick up and play.

[CharonsHelper]

I'm also running at a more realistic setting level than you are, with DNIs just being another connection type and mecha being restricted to spider tanks (because spider tanks are cool and plausible).

Perhaps a bit, but I'm actually keeping the mecha pretty small - just a step above power armor. Only one model is much more than 3 meters tall. (Think the mecha from Ghost in the Shell rather than Gundam.) And basically the jack-in ability (hooking into your nervous system) is what makes them viable for combat, because your reflexes will inherently be a bit faster etc. Alien mecha (the few there are) look like they do, because their nervous systems are different.

Frankly, my KISS solution for vehicles is to just say that wheeled/tracked vehicles aren't used much, and virtually every vehicle is anti-grav so that I don't have to worry about the physics feeling right (and skip terrain issues), and keep the vehicle rules simpler. But... I feel like just dropping wheeled/tracked vehicles would be something of a cop-out and make it feel like the system is missing something.

[Anonymouswizard]

Perhaps a bit, but I'm actually keeping the mecha pretty small - just a step above power armor. Only one model is much more than 3 meters tall. (Think the mecha from Ghost in the Shell rather than Gundam.) And basically the jack-in ability (hooking into your nervous system) is what makes them viable for combat, because your reflexes will inherently be a bit faster etc. Alien mecha (the few there are) look like they do, because their nervous systems are different.

Frankly, my KISS solution for vehicles is to just say that wheeled/tracked vehicles aren't used much, and virtually every vehicle is anti-grav so that I don't have to worry about the physics feeling right (and skip terrain issues), and keep the vehicle rules simpler. But... I feel like just dropping wheeled/tracked vehicles would be something of a cop-out and make it feel like the system is missing something.

Ah, yeah I also have limited powered armour and exoskeletons. Using them fully is considered to be rather complex, and might require a trait, so while anyone can use the strength boost and armour most people can't also use the inbuilt weaponry, computer, and so on.

To be fair, I don't actually have anti-grav in the setting, so vehicles have the choice between tracked/wheeled/legs/jets/rotors, with most spacecraft never entering the atmosphere (to avoid the problem of having to get out again). So I can't use the simple solution (although some of the stuff is fairly simple, walkers ignore uneven terrain penalties in exchange for a slower speed is easy enough). There's a reason this science fiction game has a corebook focused entirely on standard humans, with not an alien or AI in sight for players (aliens will be provided for GM use, but only 'typical' members).

[CharonsHelper]

To be fair, I don't actually have anti-grav in the setting, so vehicles have the choice between tracked/wheeled/legs/jets/rotors, with most spacecraft never entering the atmosphere (to avoid the problem of having to get out again). So I can't use the simple solution (although some of the stuff is fairly simple, walkers ignore uneven terrain penalties in exchange for a slower speed is easy enough). There's a reason this science fiction game has a corebook focused entirely on standard humans, with not an alien or AI in sight for players (aliens will be provided for GM use, but only 'typical' members).

Well, I don't have anti-grav yet either. But, all of the ships do have artificial gravity (I don't want to deal with the mechanics for zero-g etc.), and the in-system space travel is actually done by gravity drive (grabbing 2+ pieces of gravity within the system and either pushing or pulling, it keeps the action on the plane of the star system), so anti-grav would fit the setting pretty well.

But - it's definitely not my first choice.

[Thrudd]

So you just eyeball it with point based games then?

I was wondering if it was something like "take points/ranks/merits had by entire party and divide by enemies being faced".

In systems Im thinking of, like D6 and oWoD, yes, it's pretty much an eyeball. These systems tend to run more cinematic than D&D.

In D6, I would look at the PCs' combat and physical/ toughnes scores and what sort of damage they can do, decide how dangerous I want these enemies to be, and give them scores that reflect how often I think they should hit and be hit. That is, if I care about a "balanced" encounter that they are supposed to defeat. Often I don't. I give things the stats I think they ought to have according to the setting, and the players deal with it.
Because there are so many abilities and skills and different ways to approach things, an encounter doesn't need to just be about strategically applying your combat skills against their combat skills.