When it come to more traditional RPGs, I really like Pathfinder 2E for the following reasons:

• It scales very well from level 1-20. The math just works
• Encounter design and balancing is easy for the busy GM
• All of the classes are good, there aren't any trap classes
• Teamwork is highly encouraged through class and ability design
• Degrees of success/failure
• Easy, free access to the rules
• The ORC license
• https://pathbuilder2e.com/
• Pathfinder Society Organized play is very well done and well supported by Paizo
• Women wear reasonable armor
• The rune system for magic weapons/armor
• And so many more

Okay but as long as we are complaining about shit we see on RPG forums

"I wish I could do $thing in DnD"

"$otherSystem has a very cool subsystem for $thing"

"Omg how dare you"

Had this conversation enough times to make it a pet peeve of mine

Anyway the only thing about 5e that does suck is Wizards of the Coast. Otherwise it's fine. It's just fine. You can have fun with it.

I'm more of a Pathfinder 2e guy tho.

(And pf2 is basically a more advanced take on what 5e was doing so....)

It's hard to extoll the virtues of my chosen system (Pathfinder2e) without comparing it to the issues of where I find 5e lacking.

That said, what I love about 2e is the great encounter balance, almost every single "build" for a class is viable, and when you say "I'm playing a rogue" there are like 4 major types of rogues that all feel like they play differently instead of just some tacked on homebrew class. Adding free archetype rules (supported by the system creators themselves in their books) adds even more customizability.

One of my favorite things is that PF2e makes it feel like it makes encounter design fun again; martials actually have more options than just walk up and attack repeatedly, spacing matters, defenses matter. Most classes have some sort of gimmick that makes them play differently. Been working with my girlfriend to make a swashbuckler for the game I am DMing, and the panache/bravado/finisher mechanics really excite us from a roleplay and gameplay standpoint.

The three action system is way more flexible than the action/bonus action system. You can spend all 3 actions on a huge spell and burn your entire turn. You can move away from enemies to force them to burn an action or flank them to gain bonuses to attack for yourself and allies. You can apply debuffs using your main stats with actions like Demoralize, and still attack or move on your turn.

You constantly gain feats, and they are what defines your character so much. No longer do you get a "choice" of an ASI or feat. You get ones every level. There are ancestry tests from your race, class feats, skill feats, archetype feats. They don't just make you stronger, they instead give you more possible actions, give you unique traits, like being able to fight while climbing or use deception to detect when someone is lying instead of perception.

Also, you can find every rule for free online @ Archives of Nethys. No more being gated by purchases outside of adventure paths.

I could keep going, and I really want to extoll how awesome Golarion is, and the pantheon of gods, and everything. But I will stop here. Would happily answer anyone's questions about the system, I love it. It gave me true passion for tabletop RPGs while DnD5e made me feel really mildly about it.

I love Pathfinder 2E! I'm a pretty new player, but it's captured my heart. The three-action economy is great and offers so much freedom. The characters are INSANELY customizable, and I love how multiclassing works. And to top it all off, everything you need to play is free! Only the lore and campaigns have to be purchased. Plus, iirc, Paizo has vowed never to use generative AI in their works!

d&d 5e is a fine system, it's just more than i want to gm and more than my friends want to learn. so simpler systems like shadowdark or black hack are really great for us, but if your group knows d&d 5e and has fun playing it, than why the hell not just play 5e?

let me tell you about daggerheart!

having combed through a good portion of ttrpgs that have come out over the last 20 years, and having played a version of d&d since the 90s, i've found a system that does a lot of what i've been after in a system and i'm hoping that it's popularity continues to grow.

things i like:

• new player friendly (either new to ttrpgs or new to this system particularly)
• heroic curve for player actions (2d12 > 1d20)
• narrative driven, but still tied to mechanics (in combat action doesn't grind to a halt, which allows for a flow that i more appreciate.)
• degrees of success and failure (allowing for more gradient resolution to checks, which then allows for more opportunity for tension)
• hope & fear as mechanics (hope being used by players to boost what they do and fear being used by the gm to facilitate opposition. i like that there's a tangible correlation between failure and the walls closing in.)
• the structure of monster and environment stat blocks (these work really well for me and it makes it easy to frame something with the mechanics with little effort).
• the emphasis on collaborative storytelling. (this is something i think either a lot of ttrpgs just don't do, do a bad job at getting across, or gms/dms don't take into account. i like being a fan of my players. i do not like the 'me vs them' mentality of running a game. this is the player's story, i'm just furnishing it with extra layers and adding complications when things don't go their way.)

if you like a heroic, narrative-driven fantasy system that makes combat less of a wargame, but doesn't pull it's punches, then i think this one is a good shout. i feel like it has enough rules to give players direction and enforce narrative choices, but removes some of the things i feel make other systems feel tedious or unrealistic.

other systems that i've eyed but haven't had a chance to play yet:

• delta green (high on my list. horror/conspiracy setting that put regular folks up against lovecraftian horrors. not to solve or understand it, but to end it. it's like call of cthulhu but you hate your job and you want to go home.)
• lancer (epic mecha building fantasy. make a big beautiful bot from a ridiculously large number of options over time and fight. super duper crunchy)
• the wildsea (post apocalyptic fantasy of sailing on the treetops of an overgrown world and dealing with what's left behind after nature takes back the planet)
• mothership (aliens the ttrpg. shit goes down on spaceships. you will probably die in a spectacular way. it will be fun.)

most of these recommendations have come from quinns quest on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/@Quinns_Quest) and having followed quinns from board gaming to video gaming to ttrpgs, I feel like he does a great job of highlighting a lot of overlooked gems in this space. if not just to check out the possibilities that are afforded to you when you step outside the box of what has become popular, but to experience games that people put a lot of love into and it definitely shows in their work.

as a last point, i think it's okay to be critical of things, even things that we enjoy. often times the things we like the most are the things we're most critical of. i personally have watched d&d grow from ad&d to where it is now, and still play it. mostly because it's popular and the people i play games with know it well. they're the same people i've been making great strides with in terms of introducing new systems and showcasing all the neat stuff people have made. i'm not a fan of d&d anymore. mostly because i've grown tired of it, but also because of all the baggage that it has (wotc and hasbro being the biggest two). but i am a fan of tabletop gaming and getting together with friends to have fun. i think that's the primary goal, so whatever you use to facilitate that is fine. just don't close the door on criticism because you don't want to hear anything negative about what makes you happy. open the door to new things.

GURPS is my go-to system. It's incredibly flexible, both in what it allows you to do as a player, and what kind of game you can run as a GM.

It's an older system, and by default is rather simulationist - it grew out of the same tabletop wargaming that D&D did, and tends to take a more realistic approach to what players can do than more narrative systems. I like some of the more narrative systems as well - Starforged is my other go-to system - but the characters always feel a little more loosely defined to me. GURPS is perfectly happy saying "okay, you can fly, you can turn invisible, and you can't be killed" - but if you want to make your character more nuanced, it's not only possible, but encouraged!

On the other hand, if you just want to throw something together and go, you can do that too! One of my players has a character sheet that consists of their racial abilities, 5 or 6 regular skills, and a high level "Security!" wildcard skill. And 3 guns. They're a nightmare in combat, because "Security!" is their all-in-one skill with pistols and melee combat, along with anything else a person with a security background would be expected to know - it's been rolled against to evaluate patrol schedules, reading a foe's body language, and shadowing a mark, among other things. That character plays alongside someone with three different templates (classes), a mount, a bevy of different equipment options, and something like 55 different skills - because that player -wanted- that kind of detail. And they're both very effective in their domains, and play off of each other well.

That's the thing that really sticks out to me about GURPS - it's very playable with a very minimal ruleset (GURPS Ultra-Lite is free, and 2 pages - http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ultra-lite/), and can seamlessly expand when you want more detail. And not only are there a lot of options for that detail, they also show their work - so if you're still missing something, you can generally still come up with reasonable rules. It just gets a reputation for being super complicated because the people who discover it tend to get excited and throw everything in...

People are very bad at explaining what they like about things, because usually they like things in contrast to things they don't like. And people who do identify what they like positively often just get told that their input isn't welcome, either.

The problem isn't whether someone is focusing on negative aspects of what you're playing or the positive aspects of what they are, it's that discussions about minority systems are often just puked up onto people who weren't asking. The conversation is often:

"Hey, how can I do [thing] in [game I'm playing]?"

"[Game you're playing] sucks at [thing]/isn't designed for [thing]. You should play [something else]."

"But I like [game I'm playing], and don't want to convert to a whole new system."

This means not only is the asker's question being totally ignored, but they're being hit with -- sometimes even bombarded by -- value judgements they weren't interested in.

Runequest

No character classes: everyone can fight, everyone gets magic, everyone worships a god (with a few exceptions), and your character gets better at stuff they do or stuff they get training in. The closest there is to a character class is the choice of god your character worships (which dictates which Rune spells your character might have) but there is plenty of leeway to play very different worshippers of the same god.

No levels: your character gets better at stuff they do or stuff they get training in. As they progress in their god's cult they also get access to more Rune spells.

Intuitive percentile 'roll under' system: an absolute newbie who's never played any RPG before can look at their character sheet and understand how good their character is at their skills: "I only have 15% in Sneak, but a 90% Sword skill - reckon I'm going in swinging!'"

Hit locations: fights are very deadly and wounds matter, "Oh dear, my left leg's come off!"

Passions and Runes: these help guide characterisation,and can also boost relevant skill rolls in a role-playing driven way, e.g invoking your Love Family passion to try and augment your shield skill while defending your mother from a marauding broo.

Meaningful religions: your character's choice of deity and cult provides direction, flavour, and appropriate magic. Especially cool when characters get beefy enough to start engaging in heroquesting - part ceremonial ritual, part literal recreation of some story from the god time.

No alignment: your character's behaviour can be modified by their passions, eg "Love family" or "Hate trolls", and possibly by the requirements of whatever god you worship, but otherwise is yours to play as you see fit in the moment without wondering if you're being sufficiently chaotic neutral.

Characters are embedded in their family, their culture, and the cult of the god they worship: the game encourages connections to home, kith, kin, and cult making them more meaningful in game and, in the process, giving additional background elements to take the edge off murder hoboism (though if that's what the group really wants then that's a path they can go down (see MGF, next)).

YGMV & MGF: Greg Stafford, who created Glorantha, the world in which Runequest is set, was fond of two sayings. The first is "Your Glorantha May Vary". It is a fundamental expectation, upheld by Chaosium, that while they publish the 'canonical' version of Glorantha any and every GM has the right to mess with it for the games they run. Find the existence of feathered humanoids with the heads, bills, and webbed feet of ducks to be too ridiculous for your game table? Then excise them from the game with Greg's blessing! The second is the only rule that trumps YGMV, and that is that the GM should always strive for "Maximum Game Fun".

While we're on the subject of Glorantha, the world of Glorantha! It's large and complex and very well developed in some areas (notably Dragon Pass and Prax) but with plenty of space for a GM to insert their own creations. It is, without doubt, one of the contenders for best RPG setting of all time.

To continue on the subject of Glorantha, there is insanely deep and satisfying lore if you want to go full nerdgasm on it. But you can play and enjoy the game with a sliver-thin veneer of knowledge: "I'm playing a warrior who worships Humakt, the uncompromising god of honour and Death." The RQ starter set contains everything you need to get a real taste for the game (ie minimal lore) and is great value for money since it's what Chaosium hope will draw people in.

Ducks: ducks are cool and not to be under-estimated.

My current DM despises 5e

I think it's because 3.5 offers such a ludicrous bag of dickfuckery for the GM to employ at their leisure it's literally like hanging out with someone who insists on cleaning their guns with company over.

I just want to play cyberpunk red again.

Oh! Dread is fantastic at the thing it is good at, which is horror one-shot sessions. The rules are incredibly lightweight, which makes it nice for people who have never played and RPG before or people who just want to jump into a story. By using a real, physical Jenga tower as the mechanic everyone can see the tension building up as the story goes on and the crash always provides a good jump scare. Then there is a tension break as the tower is rebuilt but goes up again as the initial pulls for missing party members happen. I also love the 20 questions style character creation, which lets people put as much or as little work into it as they want, doesn't get bogged down in mechanics which break immersion, and lets the GM really surprise them with difficult dilemmas.

Oh I can do both. Though it's not necessarily that I think 5e sucks, (maybe 5.5e does though I don't know it well), but rather that Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro sucks and I refuse to continue to support them.

Although I do have to thank them since I very likely would not have explored other systems so vigorously had they not so visibly shown how greedy they've become.

I'm partial to Fate.

It's very open. You don't have to worry about looking up the right class or feats. You just describe what you want to play, and if the group thinks it's cool and a good fit for the story, you're basically done.

Now, the downside is this requires a lot more creativity up front. A blank page can be intimidating.

I like that players have more control over the outcome. You can usually get what you want, even if you roll poorly, but it's more of a question of what you're willing to pay for it.

Every roll will be one of

• succeed with style
• succeed
• a lesser version of what you want
• succeed at a minor cost
• succeed at a major cost
• (if you roll badly and don't want to pay any costs) fail, don't get what you want

It's a lot more narrative power than some games give you. I don't like being completely submissive to the DM, so I enjoy even as a player being able to pitch "ok I'm trying to hack open this terminal... how about as a minor cost I set off an alarm?" or "I'm trying to steal his keys and flubbed the roll... How about as a major cost I create a distraction, get the keys, but drop my backpack by accident. Now I'm disarmed, have no tools, and they can probably trace me with that stuff later. But I got the keys!".

It's more collaborative, like a writer's room, so if someone proposes a dud solution the group can work on it.

The math probability also feels nice. You tend to roll your average, so there's less swinginess like you'll get in systems rolling one die.

Without saying anything negative about D&D 5e, let me tell you about two of my personal favorites:

The Dark Eye

Under the name "Das Schwarze Auge", this is one of the most popular systems in Germany and has existed since the mid 80s and the latest edition has been available in English for about a decade now. There are dozens of source books and hundreds of official campaigns and standalone adventures, all set in the same world and a single ongoing canon (apart from a few early works that have been retconned). There are decades of detailed in-world history that you can use as a background for your own campaign if you want or selectively ignore if you want to focus on your own interpretation of what the world should look like.

Mechanics-wise it's a lot less board-game-like than some 70s/80s/90s systems while not going the full "storytelling first" route that many more moderns systems seem to prefer. On top of the eight basic attributes, characters can select from a pool of skills and feats that cover everything from combat to magic to social interaction to crafts and hobbies. The system focuses a lot less on combat than other high fantasy systems and it's absolutely viable to have a group of purely social-focused characters that never get into a single fight but still get to use a lot of the system's mechanics.

Overall it's relatively complex if you want to use absolutely every rule but at the same time very versatile and can be customized to your playstyle.

Opus Anima / Opus Anima Investigation

Sadly out of print and never officially translated to English so I'll focus on the one thing that works without the official setting: it's one of the simplest systems I've ever seen. It uses a pool of D2s (odd/even on D6, coins, red/black cards, whatever you have on hand) where the number of dice is determined by a basic attribute and a skill that can be combined however the situation requires. Dexterity + mechanics to build something, perception + mechanics to recognize a mechanism, knowledge + mechanics to understand the underlying principles or remember who invented something. To avoid experienced characters failing an easy check out of pure bad luck, everything over 10 dice is not rolled but gives half a success (rounded up) automatically. That's it. That's the whole system.

I'm a fan of old-school Shadowrun (2nd ed.); it didn't matter how bad-ass your character was, you could get killed by a lucky shot from a punk with a zipgun. It kept the grime of Cyperpunk, and added fantastical elements to it. IMO, it required more role-playing than is strictly necessary in a lot of D&D games, because going in guns blazing all the time was almost certain to lead to death; properly played (IMO), the GM should be brutal in how they handle stupid players.

The downside was so many six sided dice.

I just started DMing an Ironsworn campaign for my wife. I like that it's fiction-forward rather than mechanics-forward, and being able to run a campaign built around having only 1 player makes scheduling so simple, reliable, and just an all around good experience.

There are systems like Blades in the Dark that bypass all the planning phases and just let players jump into the interesting parts of the story. Better yet, it has mechanics to support this kind of play.

"Simulation" type RPGs can be done on computers these days with much more detailed and satisfying tactical combat, but narrative-focused games that play more like an episodic show is where the really interesting TTRPG stuff is happening in my opinion.

Basic Role-Playing (BRP), which is the system Call of Cthulhu is based on, is a great alternative to D&D as a roleplaying system. It is much easier to learn and understand, everything is based on percentages, and the system can be as mechanically crunchy or open as the DM prefers.

I was introduced to flyweight RPGs a few years back and I absolutely love what they can do in the hands of a creative group.

Roll for Shoes is about as minimal as it gets. You will need one D6, and something to track player inventory. The game world is best started by the GM in the abstract, letting the players fill in the world's details through creative use of questions that prompt die rolls. This is fantastic for players that want to stretch their improv skills.

Lasers & Feelings has a tad more structure. Everyone has exactly one stat that sits on a spectrum of "lasers" to "feelings". The difficulty of challenges in the game sit on the same spectrum. Depending on the nature of the challenge and what the player's stat is, a single D6 roll decides the outcome. Everything else is role-playing in what is encouraged to be a Trek-like setting.

In my experience, Roll for Shoes usually turns into a cartoon-esque "let's see what else is in my backpack" affair, that usually ends with everything on fire (because of course it does). Lasers & Feelings typically devolves into Lower Decks. All of these are positives in my book - I'd play again in a heartbeat.

Dungeon crawl classic, start with 3-5 level 0 chars each and hope the best rolled character survives the initial onslaught. Using magic is dangerous, a miscast spell could leave you disfigured or worse. Thick boy rule book.

Yes! Thank you!

One Roll Engine is my obsessive small-time RPG system. I've always loved systems where you get to roll a heap of d10s, but more importantly it has a highly expressive and generalizable core mechanic that allows everyone to roll at once without taking turns, and attacks resolve in a dynamic fashion so that initiative order, damage, hit location, and contested rolls all happen in one roll. It's great for gritty, fast-paced, lethal combats where you can give players a lot of freedom to get creative and stay engaged. It has great rules for easily killed mooks as well, so you can quite easily have huge numbers of enemies and allies all in one battle, and it takes far less time to resolve each turn - and a far greater proportion of that time is people talking about what they're going to do. Reign uses ORE, and that includes rules for running companies (gangs, businesses, armies, entire countries even). I've used ORE variants to run occult horror, mecha, low-magic fantasy, slice of life, robot sci-fi, and more over the years. It's a great system and I can teach 85% of what you need to play in just a few minutes.

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I actually like D&D and much prefer it to every other family of games I've tried (WoD, GURPS, PbtA, etc). What i dont like is the current iteration of D&D, which is why my recommendations are:

Swords & Wizardry Complete: it's OD&D with some of the rough edges sanded off and all the optional material added. Tons of classes, lots of tools for procedural world building, and very easily hackable. It's simpler to teach to a new player, and its more flexible than 5e for experienced players. The tick-tock of the dungeon turn structure makes it easier to keep pace as a GM, and when in doubt, rolling x-in-6 always holds up. If you want a classic dungeon crawler, this is it.

Whitehack: Still D&D but more narrative. Skills are replaced with groups that can give advantages to tasks directly influenced by membership in that group. Magic is super flexible and everyone has access to some form of it, but the "magic user" class gets to just make up their own spells and pay some HP depending on effect size. Great rules for base building, good GM advice for making adventures that aren't dungeon or wilderness crawls (but are structured like those things). The core mechanic minimizes table math so even your players who struggle with addition can play fast. Less deadly than actual old D&D but keeping the same vibe. It's my favorite for those who prefer narrative to mechanics. In a lot of ways, it's D&D rewritten for the way a lot of people actuslly play 5e.

Nope. You play what you want. I, however, will not play any game from a company that demonstrably dislikes its customers. So far, wizards of the Coast and games workshop are on my list. In the electronic space, EA, Microsoft, and Sony.