Please Explain Fantasy Craft

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I heard good things about Fantasy Craft, so I picked up a PDF of it. After giving it a good skim, and reading the important parts, I was left with a question: why?

The classes are wonky and often unnecessary, not coving important fantasy archetypes in favour of redundancy. Does there really need to be a whole class for mounted combat?

The rules are very convoluted and intimidating, and there are so many of them! Its more meticulously fleshed-out than GURPS, and often goes into far too much detail. It doesn't just seem clunky, it seems unplayable.

Its no FATAL, but I still wonder what the appeal is. Why do people play this instead of other games like every edition of D&D, Labyrinth Lord, Pathfinder, and Swords & Wizardry, or generic systems like BRP, GURPS, Savage Worlds, and Storytelling System. I don't get it. There are so many options that - to me - seem vastly better.

Why?

[eggs]

It's just d20 with a slight difference in metagame design values.

Fantasycraft's useful for the same things d20 is - rules-heavy tactical wargames with an easily generalizable base mechanic and intricate structured character-building.

Its appealing angles over other d20 games are its overarching design mentality (measuring each player's moments to shine per session, tracking resources by scene and adventure), more unified rules structure (the lists of effects and tags might be daunting, but there are far fewer of the subtle effect variations to track than the default d20 casting's separate entries), simple action structure (compare to D&D, where swift and immediate actions were clumsily added to the core mechanics after the system had been published) and deeper basic tactical structure (a nonmagical fantasycraft warrior has many more viable combat options than an unspecialized D&D fighter's "hit it again" or "eat an AoO").

The minor details might also be appealing, like sword specialists having different abilities than axe specialists or characters' numbers not relying on magic items to matter.

Maybe not all of those are things you're into, but they're where most of the appeal lies.

EDIT:
If the question is "why would anyone want a game as rules-heavy as d20?" it's largely for the tactical aspects: strict and explicit rules make tactical game elements possible which are otherwise problematic in "rulings over rules" environments.

[wadledo]

The classes are wonky and often unnecessary, not coving important fantasy archetypes in favour of redundancy. Does there really need to be a whole class for mounted combat?I take it you've never played any edition of D&D then.


The rules are very convoluted and intimidating, and there are so many of them! Its more meticulously fleshed-out than GURPS, and often goes into far too much detail. It doesn't just seem clunky, it seems unplayable.Again, the rules are actually a streamlined version of 3.5, with a few of the later things (such as the equivalent of actions points, for example) put into the system from the get-go.

[Edge of Dreams]

I don't care for Fantasy Craft too much as a whole system, but individual parts of it have some good ideas.

* The use of feats to represent sub-races
* Feat trees that make each weapon style feel different
* Combat tricks that any class can learn and use
* Optional rules for early guns (muskets and such)
* Advice on how to tweak the setting/rules and what impact that will have on the game
* No dead levels
* Adding some explicit narrative structure
* Magic items are not for sale - they can be found, or earned through reputation and knowing the right people, but you can't put a gold piece price on them
* Reputation system that allows players to ask for favors and get mechanical benefits for being famous heroes

[paddyfool]

I'd second most of the good ideas Edge of Dreams puts in, with some caveats:


* Advice on how to tweak the setting/rules and what impact that will have on the game

More than that; there's a hefty basis for modular design of what rules you want to play under, under the "campaign settings" bit. A high degree of customisability in general (especially considering that it's a level-based game) is one of the strengths.

Some more good stuff:
* Easy for any class to be proficient enough at melee or ranged combat to be useful, without investing a massive amount in it
* Magic user : non-magic user power differential is much less marked than i the obvious equivalent, while magic users remain very distinct (spells are generally less powerful than their 3.5 equivalents, and in particular follow a shallower progression in power by spell level after level 2 or so, while skills, melee and ranged are generally more effective than in 3.5; they more or less meet in the middle, although a Mage will still generally end up with a bigger toolkit than other classes)
* Use of magic items far from essential, and certainly not for basic competency, for any class.
* Very helpful user forum on crafty-games.com
* That main pdf you have is all you really need to play or run games; anything else is just gravy
* High cinematics as standard (although you can turn it down a lot if you want a gritty game).

Some challenges:
* You have to unlearn a fair bit of what you've learned, because it really isn't as similar to 3.5 or pathfinder as it seems on the surface, while being approximately as complex (a tad more complex than core 3.5, but less than 3.5 with all the trimmings).
* Beware of fire, and especially of getting set on fire.
* Slow production cycle; don't hold your breath for any new books (although the second main expansion volume, Spellbound, should be out in a few months or so).
* See my sig

On the whole, I prefer this to 3.5 or pathfinder mainly because I prefer the greater cinematic feel to it, easy customisability, and classes being balanced out of the box. (To put this in context, the other systems I favour are Savage Worlds and Fate, both for simpler play generally). But it's easier to get a 3.5 or pathfinder game together, of course, because more people know the rules.

[Leeham]

In my experience, fantasy craft works. It really really, works. More so than 3.5 if you ever decide to venture past level 6. But my god it is complex.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

In my experience, fantasy craft works. It really really, works. More so than 3.5 if you ever decide to venture past level 6. But my god it is complex.

I do see how it could work. I kind of understand the appeal. But ... reading it is like being hit on the head with a pile of GURPS books.

[Leeham]

I do see how it could work. I kind of understand the appeal. But ... reading it is like being hit on the head with a pile of GURPS books.

I know, it's tough going. At times it's dryer than Gandhi's sandal in the desert, but soldier on. It's really worth it.