The Great Debate: System Agnostic Games vs. Traditional TTRPGs

[Owlbear]

As tabletop RPGs continue to evolve, I've noticed a surge in system agnostic games popping up, titles that allow players and GMs to build their own rules or apply them to various settings. I'm curious about everyone's thoughts on this trend!

Do you think system agnostic games can truly rival traditional systems like D&D or Pathfinder, especially when it comes to depth and mechanics? For instance, have you tried something like Powered by the Apocalypse or Fate, and how did you find the experience compared to a more traditional system?

On the flip side, some people feel that with greater flexibility comes a lack of structure that can hinder storytelling. As someone who loves world-building and character depth, I find myself torn.

Let's hash it out! What are your preferences: do you lean towards the classic systems that offer defined mechanics, or do you love the freedom of creating your own rules? Share your thoughts and experiences!

 

[WIZARDo]

System agnostic games definitely have their charm, and I appreciate how they push creativity and adaptability, but I also find a lot of value in the structure traditional systems like D&D and Pathfinder provide. I mean, there's something so satisfying about knowing exactly how combat flows or having a clear set of rules to back up your character decisions.

I've played several sessions using Powered by the Apocalypse, and while I loved the narrative flexibility and the way it encourages collaborative storytelling, I sometimes missed the crunchy mechanics that let me dive deep into character builds. There's a playful chaos to it that can be really fun, but I think it can be challenging to balance when you're dealing with complex story arcs and character development.

What's your experience with homebrew in traditional systems? Have you found a way to mix the best of both worlds? I'm always on the lookout for ways to integrate more narrative freedom into my D&D campaigns!