Quote from: TrippyHippy;994368Opinion and reality are not the same thing, and the more you try and convince people that your opinion is reality, the more anxious you come across.

And the more you keep following up on this, the more of a Troll you're being.

(Which is fine, we're all trolls here.)

Quote from: TrippyHippy;994369M&M still operates within the OGL, but is largely it's own thing these days. The rule system has moved away from being the same as D20 I think.

And?  It's still based on the 3.x SRD.

Quote from: jcfiala;994378And?  It's still based on the 3.x SRD.

Obviously that's just your opinion, man.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;994369M&M still operates within the OGL, but is largely it's own thing these days. The rule system has moved away from being the same as D20 I think.

All they really did was rename Feats into Advantages, the core engine is pretty much D&D 3.x.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;994418All they really did was rename Feats into Advantages, the core engine is pretty much D&D 3.x.

Sort of. A big chunk of M&M's core mechanic comes from True20, which is why it only uses a single 20-sided die. It all ultimately owes its roots to the d20 system, of course, but it does work a bit differently given how it uses conditions rather than hit points.

It's still once again a rehash of 3.5 with better cover art. They changed somethings yet to not alienate the fans that like 3.5. it's still largely intact. That's Ok though because that's was one of the main selling points of Starfinder.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;994369M&M still operates within the OGL, but is largely it's own thing these days. The rule system has moved away from being the same as D20 I think.

Its D&D roots still show but I can almost escape feeling like I'm playing "D & D Super  Heroes." No hit points, no assortment of funny dice needed, no classes. Not my favorite game, but I'd say at least by 2nd edition it was pretty well removed from D & D; from what I saw of 3rd it moved even further out.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;994418All they really did was rename Feats into Advantages, the core engine is pretty much D&D 3.x.

Not by 3rd edition its not. It has different abilities, different saves, no HP, no Classes, etc.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;993354And Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. All things which are true. None of which have any relevance to the false claim made by Dirk Remmecke.

You seem to have taken some personal offense at...

Then you've read me wrong. I have no horse in this race. I like 5e, but I'd happily play Pathfinder or Starfinder if that's what my group wanted to play. They're all fine rules and I am not personally invested in any of it being "better" than the others. I want them all to succeed.

I'd suggest, if you read what I posted as if there was some tone of offense, then perhaps it's you who is somewhat more invested in this topic than he's willing to admit. For me, we're talking inside baseball numbers. It's kinda dry as a topic, but I am up for discussing it anyway. There's no passion on this end though. Unlike you, this shit isn't my life.  All I was saying is I see advantages and disadvantages to each system. If you disagree, cool. But, you're the guy getting his panties in a bunch over it.

Quote from: jcfiala;994337Well, let's see.
1) There's Pathfinder and it's various spinoffs, of course.
2) There's Mutants and Masterminds.
3) As best as I can tell from googling, Dungeon Crawl Classics is based off of the SRD.

And then as someone else has pointed out, there's plenty of OSR games that spin off of the SRD to one degree or another, such as Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which seems to be doing very well for itself.

I really don't have a dog in this fight. Cept to say that DCC is based upon the SRD like OSRIC is. It isn't a 'd20' clone. Not a 3.5 or 3.0 one at any rate. But I do concede your point.  Back to your 'discussion'.

Quote from: dar;994492I really don't have a dog in this fight. Cept to say that DCC is based upon the SRD like OSRIC is. It isn't a 'd20' clone. Not a 3.5 or 3.0 one at any rate. But I do concede your point.  Back to your 'discussion'.

Oh, I don't have a dog in this fight either.  But it's therapeutic to argue over trivia when my wife is in the hospital.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;994454Not by 3rd edition its not. It has different abilities, different saves, no HP, no Classes, etc.

Yeah, they borrowed a bit of FASERIP for the new abilities and kept the stuff borrowed from DC Heroes and got even further away from Hit Points with "conditions" (I think they were called that). I liked the "bruises" from 2nd edition better and didn't like adding Fighting as an attribute, and didn't care for the "no attribute numbers, just modifiers" thing, but you'd barely recognize it as having been originally "D&D in Panties & Capes" at this point.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;994950:rolleyes:

When you get done dry-humping your bizarre strawman, feel free to join the conversation the rest of us are having.

Wasn't that a Nicolas Cage movie?

Seeing what i have read in other forums. It's so funny and ironic that the same people who complained about losing two levels of spells as they go only until Level 7. Are now wishing that they had beefed up the Melee types in Starfinder. Yet before Starfinder they would be the same ones claiming that the Fighter is good as is. Damned if you do and damned if you don't in the tabletop rpg industry.