Rifts

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I think it would. Once we have features like that and enough reviews than people will refer to us like RPG .net

[Entsuropi]

To beat RPG.net all we need is to keep the forums at their current flame-free levels and ensure we do not randomly submit any old crap that pretends to be a review.

[Spriggan]

and have a decent see all review section.  I hate that about RPG.net

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

and have reviews about core rule books mechanics.

[Fellfrosch]

Hmm. Well, if you guys want to do it then be my guests. I'd like to have one or two people work together on them, just to keep a coherent frame of reference--my first thought, of course, is Saint and Jeffe, but do you guys know all the different systems well enough?

[Spriggan]

and be objective enough.  If it's going to be a fair comparison there should be any fanboydom involved.  So if TWERPS or HERO comes out the best I'm calling shenanigans!

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Well I know, WEG Star Wars, AD&D, D20, Hackmaster, Storyteller, Traveller, Gurps and Hero, Oh and I played Palladium (Robotech) for 10 years. I know others but those are the biggies.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

What if Twerps and Hero really are the best rules mechanics in terms of the criteria?

Seriously though Im sure Eric and I could be objective. But to do so we need benchmarks.  

What exactly are we judging, Complexity, Clarity, Comprehensiveness, Math Skills, Speed of play and Accessability?

[Fellfrosch]

We have to judge them for purpose as well--remember our old "Nobilis vs. Feng Shui" argument. If a system is designed for a particular style of play, we should be sure to point that out rather prominently. So if Storyteller works really well for interaction and really poorly for combat (as Entropy said in the Werewolf review) we can bring that out.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Ok, so it's time to talk criteria (because between the two of us we're not going to have a hard time knowing the systmes, we already know and have played frequently most systems).

We're not necessarily looking at our "favorites" I think. We're looking at what works for what. we're looking at ease of use, how quick the rules are to learn, and how well the simulate. Perhaps a scale for much of them. Complexity, learning curve, and simulation. For this I don't think a numberic scale will work, because some people don't want direct simulation, they'd rather have abstraction. We want an objective evaluation of what the system is like, so players will know what to expect. Not evaluations of how much we like it, because that will be based on our personal prejudices and preferences.

[Spriggan]

humm that would be intresting if HERO and TWERPS were the best games, but you're the only person that I've ever meet that likes them.  Everyone else I know that playes them has not cared for the systems.

[Entsuropi]

If you do comparisons, compare systems that are similar. I say this because comparing ST and D20 is a dodgy comparison; one is a very fast and abstract non-combat system with a combat system tacked on. The other is a pretty hard and solid combat system with a non-combat system tacked on. So i guess i am saying it would be better to have comparisons between say, Hero & D20 in one article and Twerps & ST in another.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I don't think I'm interested in comparisons. At least, not direct ones. I'm looking at what the systems do and are good for. so you can take the style you like to play and find a system for it.