The Scaffolding

One of the worst parts about Wizard's D&D is all the rules scaffolding they brought from Magic: The Gathering. The team invents unique sorts of actions, like bonus actions and reactions, and this is just one area—but there are many. Then you get into problems like double-casting spells with a bonus action.

TSR D&D wasn't like that; the designers understood the game to be more straightforward without many of the frameworks card game designers brought in. Again, you only get into some of these layered rules, which are primarily designed to be cheated and taken advantage of, like in a card game, where they create card synergies and situations for one particular card or deck build to shine.

Wizards' D&D also has the concept of "deck builds" in characters, which is what multiclassing and subclasses provide. A character is like your deck; each subclass, power, spell, and ability gained is your deck composition.

This is why some love 5E and some hate it. It is also why the break with Critical Role is inevitable. They are story gamers, and they need a system that appeals to that audience. It is unacceptable to ask their fans to do these 5E "deck builds" and constrain their stories to those few viable options. This is also why the OSR exists; we remember the TSR D&D as it used to be for the first 30 years of its life. Even Paizo is an offshoot of the Wizard's model, with many of the same 3E designers.

D&D and Pathfinder are character-builder games, like MtG is a deck-builder game.

GURPS has far more rules, so it should be worse. It is more of a character builder than 5E. The rules here are all built to maintain a simulation and character-builder system; when you get to combat, you take one action on one turn. It is even more fine-grained than D&D since readying a weapon is all you can do. It is just one thing; moving and attacking inside one turn is penalized. You don't have a lot of action types here or bonus actions to try and turn stuff before another 45 minutes go by for the table to decide what they are all doing next.

While you can "deck build" to take advantage of a rule in GURPS, it is usually bad form and highly unrealistic since the build system is supposed to reflect a lifetime of learning and experiences. In any Wizards' version of D&D, optimizing is typically seen as a good thing, and the same is true in Pathfinder 2, where optimization goes much harder regarding gameplay.

I can only play GURPS with 3 characters, which is a huge ask. It is better-played solo, as a single hero game, and doing that hardcore simulation.

But I don't see GURPS as a character-builder game, unlike how 5E or Pathfinder are designed. In those games, paths, and synergies are built into your limited choices. In GURPS, you have unlimited options and no paths to follow. The 5E designers put in trick builds and good combos; in GURPS, you are what you are and the game designer.

Cypher is a rules-light system, so it should be the best. Not really; while I love Cypher, I sometimes must be in the mood for the game's abstract nature. Running many characters in this rules-light game is also as much of a chore as GURPS, since after a while, the numbers, pools, edges, and abilities all start to blur together in a jumble of rules-light game linguistics and special terms make my head spin. The more rules-light a game gets, the more abstract and conceptual it gets, and I feel my brain slowly leaving reality in some FATE-induced mental haze. I still love Cypher.

With these new games, my eyes glaze over when I see 5E and Pathfinder 2 "tier lists" for classes and abilities for builds and videos going over this on YouTube. Don't take this. It's the wrong choice! It's a garbage-tier ability. Overall, it's the best pick. Why would you go with this? Terrible pick.

It has come to a point where I am selling all these other character-builder games. GURPS is my favorite; I can build with my own choices, and I will stick with it.

Shouldn't your story take priority over optimization if it is all about the story? Or are people steering their stories into optimized builds? I feel that this is why Critical Role is doing its own story system; how can players' stories be vital if they are beholden to the builds that Wizards decides are "hot" this season?

With a digital game, prepare for seasonal builds and options that are moved out of live support and into legacy. This will be like the ever-changing ground of an MMO, Magic the Gathering, or even Warhammer 40K, with entire armies or cards removed from active play. A digital game will never stay the same and be constantly flipped over like a compost pile to keep options fresh. Prepare for classes, races, subclasses, spells, powers, magic items, gear, and every other game part to move to live service models. Legacy options may still be supported, but I feel 'official play' builds will only be allowed with choices the designers think are viable and in "live rotation."

To their credit, Pazio has avoided live service models, and they deserve to be commended. If GURPS did not exist, I would be doing PF2. GURPS keeps random game designers out of my character builds, and I make the choices based on what suits my story.

Modern character-building games are one step away from a live service model. Don't be fooled.

This is the MtG and Games Workshop model, which has proven to work and drive profits. I don't have to like it to acknowledge it exists. And this is precisely how I would move D&D if I were in charge and had to answer to shareholders. It's the same thing; you get put in that position and don't have a choice.

Answering fans is a different thing.