PDA

View Full Version : The Better Roleplaying Game



JellyPooga
2017-01-17, 07:55 AM
Don't you just hate that "epiphany moment" that happens every now and then, when you realise that a game you've known and loved for years, a game you've played through epic campaigns and gutsy shorts, a game you've spent countless hours arguing over rules interpretations and houserules, a game who your most beloved characters are designed for, their character sheets stained with unremembered snacks, the HP box worn through from endless erasing, the margins filled with pointless doodles from when you were waiting for your next turn, a game which you lovingly spent months of spare time crafting your homebrew setting for, no, not a mere setting a living, breathing world in which to set your campaigns and adventures, a game you've played through thick and thin, edition wars, errata and endless publications...a game that you realise, well, that it just isn't as good as another system that no-one else plays.

For me the game I've known and loved is D&D. I've played it for almost 30 years, from Basic all the way through to 5ed and I've loved it (except 4ed...that was awful); dozens of campaigns and adventures, hundreds of characters imagined (if not played), vast swathes of my bank-balance and spare time sunk into it (no regrets on that front, but it's true)...but for me it's just not as good a system as The One Ring.

D&D is buggy; it's full of these weird little quirks and foibles, some things just don't make sense and somehow, the rules manage to simultaneously be excruciatingly exact in places and confusingly ambiguous in others. It's clunky, slow, restrictive, nonsensical and...well it's really a bad system. But it works. Don't get me wrong, for all its faults D&D works. It's fun, it's daft, you don't have to take it too seriously, it's epic, it's full of content to inspire you so you don't have to do any heavy thinking; it's all there on a plate and that's great.

The One Ring, though; sure it's got its faults. I won't deny that. I can't deny that it's got some weird quirks, nor that the rules are precise in some places and ambiguous in others, just like any edition of D&D you care to mention. I can't claim that it's not that restrictive either; it's a game tailored specifically for one style of roleplaying and that's heroic adventure in the Lord of the Rings setting. It doesn't really allow for "evil" characters, for example (well, that's not strictly true; it does evil player characters remarkably well in fact, but at face value it's an easy assumption to make of the game).

But on the other hand, The One Ring is a triumph in game design; it's rules are elegant and easy to use, characters are both easy to create and largely unrestricted (within the confines of the setting, of course), the rules take into account things that make sense without having to book-keep all the minutiae, players have agency to affect not only their own characters, but the world and setting as it develops and it's focused on the narrative and inclusive roleplaying instead of the nitty-gritty of exclusive simulationism.

Yet for all the D&D I've played, I've only ever played in one campaign of The One Ring because no-one else plays it.

So...what's your "Better Game" that you never get to play?

2D8HP
2017-01-17, 08:07 AM
(King Arthur) Pendragon has topped my list for over three decades as my "want to try" RPG.

JellyPooga
2017-01-17, 08:22 AM
(King Arthur) Pendragon has topped my list for over three decades as my "want to try" RPG.

Ooh, Pendragon is a game I've heard good things about, but never known anything about it. Like I hear it has a good "character scions" system going on (or something), where you play through generations of characters, but I've got no idea what the implementation, or even the point, of that system is like.

Morty
2017-01-17, 08:24 AM
To me, it's Riddle of Steel and its spiritual successor, Song of Swords. The former is really obscure and has a pretty specific appeal. The latter is still unfinished and very much an indie game, even though it doesn't have the high bar and frankly elitist attitude RoS did.

Lord Raziere
2017-01-17, 08:29 AM
.....It feels like the "all of them except DnD" rpg, even though I know its not really true and I have gotten to try some or a couple of them.

If I had to be specific:
Godbound (does everything Exalted does with less rules, more elegance in a far easier to understand package, yet I've never played it)
Fantasy Craft (does everything I want in DnD: mana based casting, things like orcs playable, better attempt at balance, but if I had a nickel every time someone wanted to play it, I'd be broke)
OVA Rpg (the light elegant rpg for playing anime, yet no one wants to play this, because the only people I find are freeformers for playing anime)

.......yeah, I basically have this in spades. There are so many rpgs that I wish I could try and play if only people would be willing.

Knaight
2017-01-17, 09:16 AM
I don't have that moment. Finding games better than D&D is routine - I'd say somewhere between one in five and one in three RPGs I've looked at meet that standard, and while that does leave a lot of dross that still involves finding a superior game with some frequency. However, I got out early, and I've aimed for variety. I also generally GM, which means that I generally get to pick systems, and while there are some I'd love to play that I'm unlikely to ever get a chance to (e.g. Burning Wheel), and doing this prevents ever developing an excessive level of attachment to any one system. Is there comparative dross that I've played that could have been replaced by better games? Sure. That's a non-issue though; no worse than the garbage books I read and the garbage movies I watched.

2D8HP
2017-01-17, 09:50 AM
I don't have that moment. Finding games better than D&D is routine.....

I've gotten to play lot's of other RPG's besides the '70's D&D I started with, and the 5e D&D I play now, but nothing I've actually gotten to play has been as fun (Runequest and Traveller came closest).
As a GM I found Call of Cthullu easier than all but the simplest versions of D&D, but not as interesting to witness.
Other games that I could find a seat at the table for just had settings that I didn't like (Champions, Cyberpunk, and Vampire), and the games that have looked good to try (Pendragon, Castlr Falkenstein, etc) no one else wanted to try.
Even the most popular version of D&D today (3.x) seems way too "four color" super hero-ish to me, and far too often people I can actually play with want to start at higher levels or otherwise "house rule" more powerful PC's than what I like, making 5e feel even more like 3e, which I don't enjoy.

Lacco
2017-01-17, 09:53 AM
To me, it's Riddle of Steel and its spiritual successor, Song of Swords. The former is really obscure and has a pretty specific appeal. The latter is still unfinished and very much an indie game, even though it doesn't have the high bar and frankly elitist attitude RoS did.

RoS has two spiritual successors - Blade of the Iron Throne (almost completely devoted to Conan-esque sword&sorcery) and Song of Swords. And my "better game" would be both of these. I'm waiting for Song of Swords to get finalized and want to try it out.

Been GMing Shadowrun most of my GM career, and never could understand why people played anything else. Except when I tried RoS. And then FATE. Must say that every time I try something, even the bad games, my games (I still run mostly RoS and Shadowrun) improve - because I usually take something new from each system/game.

OP: I can completely understand your feelings.

Maglubiyet
2017-01-17, 10:00 AM
Yeah, I've always known that D&D wasn't a better game, just a more popular one.

IMO, Fate is everything a RPG should be. It's hard to find players, though, especially ones who can overcome their years of indoctrination into the D&D mindset.

Savage Worlds is another immensely fun game. It strikes a nice balance between crunch and ease of play. Set up and go.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-17, 10:12 AM
Yeah, I've always known that D&D wasn't a better game, just a more popular one.

IMO, Fate is everything a RPG should be. It's hard to find players, though, especially ones who can overcome their years of indoctrination into the D&D mindset.

Savage Worlds is another immensely fun game. It strikes a nice balance between crunch and ease of play. Set up and go.


Cause, you know, no one could find FATE not to their liking, unless they were an "indoctrinated" D&Der... :smallconfused: No one could dislike D&D, and dislike FATE, or whatever other game is being discussed at the moment....


(I need to save a link to this for the next time someone tells me that I'm imagining the "_____ vs D&D" false dichotomy being pushed.)

Maglubiyet
2017-01-17, 10:26 AM
Cause, you know, no one could find FATE not to their liking, unless they were an "indoctrinated" D&Der... :smallconfused: No one could dislike D&D, and dislike FATE, or whatever other game is being discussed at the moment....


Not sure I made any such statement or intimation. Are you taking this personally for some reason?

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-17, 10:30 AM
Yes, take offense even when no one is attacking you. Good, GOOD...I can feel your anger.

Yeesh.


Ahem...



IMO, Fate is everything a RPG should be. It's hard to find players, though, especially ones who can overcome their years of indoctrination into the D&D mindset.


"This new game is so good, it's a revelation, and anyone who doesn't like it is just still stuck in old and bad ways of thinking."

Are you really that tone deaf? You outright state that people who don't like what you like are "indoctrinated", and then when someone says "wait a minute", you make some snide meme comment that amounts to "U mad, bro?" with a trollface on the end...

E: I'm sick of this "our new way of gaming is what RPGs are supposed to be, it's our David vs D&D's Goliath, and the entire gaming world can only be with us or against us" nonsense, the assertion that the entire gaming world is divided between those who've escaped bad ways of gaming for Best New Thing Ever, and those who are still "indoctrinated" in the "old bad ways". I'm sick of the assumption that anyone who isn't into {game being pushed} is a D&D partisan.

Maglubiyet
2017-01-17, 10:54 AM
"This new game is so good, it's a revelation, and anyone who doesn't like it is just still stuck in old and bad ways of thinking."

Are you really that tone deaf? You outright state that people who don't like what you like are "indoctrinated", and then when someone says "wait a minute", you make some snide meme comment that amounts to "U mad, bro?" with a trollface on the end...

By "indoctrinated" I mean they have a certain way of approaching gaming that's hard to change. You can deny that it exists, but I see it all the time.

I'm not making any value judgement on what people like or don't like, but you seem bound and determined to be offended by this.



E: I'm sick of this "our new way of gaming is what RPGs are supposed to be, it's our David vs D&D's Goliath, and the entire gaming world can only be with us or against us" nonsense, the assertion that the entire gaming world is divided between those who've escaped bad ways of gaming for Best New Thing Ever, and those who are still "indoctrinated" in the "old bad ways". I'm sick of the assumption that anyone who isn't into {game being pushed} is a D&D partisan.

Well, you can be sick of it, but it's an imagined slight. I said "IN MY OPINION, Fate is everything a RPG should be". You are, of course, free to have your own opinion.

JellyPooga
2017-01-17, 11:58 AM
Cause, you know, no one could find FATE not to their liking, unless they were an "indoctrinated" D&Der... :smallconfused: No one could dislike D&D, and dislike FATE, or whatever other game is being discussed at the moment....


(I need to save a link to this for the next time someone tells me that I'm imagining the "_____ vs D&D" false dichotomy being pushed.)

Steady on. This is a thread for talking about things we like and would enjoy playing more of. This isn't supposed to be "system wars" (though I appreciate that the OP could come across that way). I like D&D, as I'm sure many of us do. I also like many other games, FATE included. It's also true that systems work in very different ways and I think a lot of the reason some systems are as unpopular as they might be is because they are different to D&D; a game many people are familiar with. Calling it "indoctrination" is a tad on the negative side, but it's an entirely accurate word to use to describe the mindset of someone whose only roleplaying experience is with D&D.

Morty
2017-01-17, 12:36 PM
RoS has two spiritual successors - Blade of the Iron Throne (almost completely devoted to Conan-esque sword&sorcery) and Song of Swords. And my "better game" would be both of these. I'm waiting for Song of Swords to get finalized and want to try it out.


Interesting. I think Blade of the Iron Throne rings a bell, but it's a vague recollection. Does it use the same dice-pool mechanic RoS did?

2D8HP
2017-01-17, 12:40 PM
Ooh, Pendragon is a game I've heard good things about, but never known anything about it. .
Well here's a pdf sample (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj07PStxsnRAhWLqlQKHWzeAQUQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flolthefol.jdr.free.fr%2FphpBB2%2F fichiersjdr%2FPendragon%2FPendragon.-.5th.Edition.Core.Rules.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH25RJ2olEXmoRhEW6i9-yKFjBeiQ) of some of the 5th edition rules (the latest I have, a 5.1 is out now).

Note: Like the 1st and 3rd, the 5th edition of Pendragon has rules for Knight (including women Knights), Lady, and Squire PC's, but only the 4th edition had rules for PC Spell Casters, though IIRC correctly the 1st and 3rd editions had the possibility of some "Lady" PC's being able to brew a magic potion (I never saw a "second edition" and I don't think it was ever published).

But really if you want to play a Spell-caster Pendragon probably isn't for you, I would look into Ars Magica instead.


FATE.


Fate.


FATE

Speaking of FATE, I own the "Core" rulebook, but rules alone doesn't motivate me.
I want a setting (and my days of "mix and matching" systems is in the past).

Some of my favorite setting genre's are:

1) Swords and Sorcery
2) Swashbuckling
3) Arthurian
4) Gaslamp Fantasy
5) Planetary Romance
6) Steampunk
7) Raygun Gothic
8) Viking

My least favorite genres are:

1) Modern-day anything
2) Dystopian Near Future
3) Dystopian Far Future

Any FATE setting books I'd like?

Also, except for rules based on TSR D&D, and Chaosium's BRP system (Runequest and it's descendents) which were imprinted on my mind decades ago, I prefer rules to be very light.

For example I'm pretty sure that I would enjoy playing low level Pathfinder, but the rules just seem too complex, as do the GURPS rules despite my loving many of the "Worldbooks".

JellyPooga
2017-01-17, 12:53 PM
GURPS has a bad rep for being rules heavy, but it doesn't have to be. It has a lot of rules, but 95% of them are entirely optional. I think you might enjoy playing GURPS run by a "rules-lite" GM if you like lighter rules, 2D8HP.

FATE is a great game to "session zero" with no preconceived ideas of the game you're going to play or even who's going to be the GM! You might not like having no setting to pore over before a game, but being able to get a group together and all sit down and create a setting and style you'll all enjoy is great. It's not unique to FATE, per se but I find the worldbuilding rules in FATE Core to be an excellent guideline on how to go about it.

(P.S. Thanks for the link!)

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-17, 01:12 PM
Steady on. This is a thread for talking about things we like and would enjoy playing more of. This isn't supposed to be "system wars" (though I appreciate that the OP could come across that way).


Well, it's not your OP that gave a "system wars" vibe.




I like D&D, as I'm sure many of us do. I also like many other games, FATE included. It's also true that systems work in very different ways and I think a lot of the reason some systems are as unpopular as they might be is because they are different to D&D; a game many people are familiar with. Calling it "indoctrination" is a tad on the negative side, but it's an entirely accurate word to use to describe the mindset of someone whose only roleplaying experience is with D&D.


(Final comment on the matter.)

Whether that's true or not... what is not accurate is the implication (yet again) that people who aren't fans of Game X are all D&D holdouts, dupes, or hardliners -- it's a classic false dichotomy.

As much of a shock as it might come to some of Game X's ardent proponents, it is possible to both dislike D&D, and also have concluded that Game X is at the same time not a viable alternative for fulfilling one's personal system preferences.

kyoryu
2017-01-17, 01:12 PM
I try to look at games not as being "better" or "worse", but rather... better suited for particular types of tasks. Like I love old-school D&D - but it's suited and designed around a playstyle that's fairly uncommon these days. I love Fate and GURPS, but I'd use them for very different things.


Cause, you know, no one could find FATE not to their liking, unless they were an "indoctrinated" D&Der... :smallconfused: No one could dislike D&D, and dislike FATE, or whatever other game is being discussed at the moment....

There's lots of reasons someone might not like Fate. I don't think you would like it, for instance, for very specific reasons.

But I've also encountered a reasonable amount of resistance against Fate (and a number of other games) just because they don't work the way D&D does. It's a real thing.

I mean "does Fate work for long-term play" comes up quite frequently, because Fate doesn't really have the kind of personal advancement progression that many players think is the cornerstone of long-term play. That's a pure D&D assumption.

Airk
2017-01-17, 01:14 PM
I too wanted to make the "All of them except D&D" joke, but lets face it - there are a lot of bad non-D&D games out there.

I'd like to play more Tenra Bansho Zero, myself. :P


GURPS has a bad rep for being rules heavy, but it doesn't have to be. It has a lot of rules, but 95% of them are entirely optional. I think you might enjoy playing GURPS run by a "rules-lite" GM if you like lighter rules, 2D8HP.

I don't really buy into the whole "don't use all of them" thing; I mean, yeah, you're unlikely to want to use the space flight rules in your Iron Age fantasy game, but there's still an enormous amount of culling that needs to be done by the GM to try to maybe get the rules set they want out of GURPS, and then the players need to learn that set of options. But then, I'm generally a non-fan of "generic" systems.

kyoryu
2017-01-17, 01:18 PM
I don't really buy into the whole "don't use all of them" thing; I mean, yeah, you're unlikely to want to use the space flight rules in your Iron Age fantasy game, but there's still an enormous amount of culling that needs to be done by the GM to try to maybe get the rules set they want out of GURPS, and then the players need to learn that set of options. But then, I'm generally a non-fan of "generic" systems.

The big one is "do you use Advanced Combat?" Not doing so gets rid of a huge amount of rules bulk.

Hawkstar
2017-01-17, 01:26 PM
Ironclaw and the Cardinal system it uses are my favorite. The way it handles skills as a combination of small dice pools and scaling die is great.

JellyPooga
2017-01-17, 01:34 PM
The big one is "do you use Advanced Combat?" Not doing so gets rid of a huge amount of rules bulk.

Most, if not all, of the Campaigns book can be happily ignored, along with about a third of the Skills and Advantages for any given game, for being setting inappropriate as Airk mentions. Any more than that is up to you.

I've run GURPS games using only the basic combat rules and eyeballing difficulty mods and it works just fine; in a lot of ways better than attaching all the bells and whistles IMO because gameplay is that much faster. Once you wrap your head around 12 is average, 15 is pretty amazing, 18+ is practically godlike, the rest of it is a cinch!

@Hawkstar: I've never heard of them. Care to elaborate?

King539
2017-01-17, 01:37 PM
Pathfinder. :smalltongue:

icefractal
2017-01-17, 02:33 PM
IMO, Fate is everything a RPG should be. It's hard to find players, though, especially ones who can overcome their years of indoctrination into the D&D mindset."Sushi is everything a food should be. It's hard to find diners, though, especially ones who can overcome their years of indoctrination into the Lasagna mindset."

By which I mean that I play both D&D and Fate, and they do different things and provide different kinds of fun. Neither could be used to replace the other except in a really half-assed way. Fate is very mechanically elegant though, no argument there.

On topic - Hero system maybe?
Heavier than I want to deal with sometimes, particularly combat-wise, but its so clean and solid to make characters in. When I read a thread like "How do I make [character] in [system that doesn't really support it]?" and it turns out the answer is taking a very specific combination of abilities, refluffing most of them, ignoring some parts that don't make sense, and having to leave some things out - I'm thinking to myself "You could make that character in Hero, no difficulty at all."

But the amount of crunchy frightens people away, and admittedly even when running smoothly it's by no means a light system, so finding players can be difficult.

Lacco
2017-01-17, 03:07 PM
Interesting. I think Blade of the Iron Throne rings a bell, but it's a vague recollection. Does it use the same dice-pool mechanic RoS did?

From what I gathered, the main difference is they are using d12 dice pools instead of d10s, attributes were reworked, skills no longer represent target numbers but dice pools (capped by relevant attribute, but if you have skill, the roll becomes easier than if you don't), magic system is workable (and quite nice, actually - I've ported it into my RoS games and trouble have yet to surface) and the priority table has been reworked (and there are lots of options how to modify the character).

Combat is largely the same (deadly, fast, tactical). And there is a great chapter about how to do the "Sword & Sorcery" atmosphere in games.

Still, haven't tested it on live players :smallbiggrin:

2D8HP
2017-01-17, 03:16 PM
...a viable alternative for fulfilling one's personal system preferences.Max_Killjoy, IIRC you liked the 5th edition of HERO, but thought it didn't work as well for lower powered adventurers.
Have you since found any system you like better?


....But I've also encountered a reasonable amount of resistance against Fate (and a number of other games) just because they don't work the way D&D does. It's a real thing...

I'm pretty upfront that familiarity makes a big difference:

Me: What's all this about 5e D&D being simpler? It's not simpler than old D&D!

Reasonable Person: 1e AD&D was simpler?

Me: Well yes because.... um.... I already know it!

Morty
2017-01-17, 03:23 PM
The sorcery in Riddle of Steel didn't really give me the impression of being usable in an actual game. Song of Swords doesn't have those rules ready yet. BoIS' magic, by the looks of it, is of the "super powerful but super dangerous" variety, but I assume it's not as out there as the RoS's system.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-17, 03:26 PM
Max_Killjoy, IIRC you liked the 5th edition of HERO, but thought it didn't work as well for lower powered adventurers.
Have you since found any system you like better?


No, sadly.

It's looking increasingly like I'm going to have to do something from scratch.




Ironclaw and the Cardinal system it uses are my favorite. The way it handles skills as a combination of small dice pools and scaling die is great.


Looks like it's 1dX for attribute and 1dX for skill, with both rated directly as a die (1d4 to 1d12), against a target number of 3 in most "tests".

kyoryu
2017-01-17, 03:30 PM
No, sadly.

It's looking increasingly like I'm going to have to do something from scratch.

Have you tried some iteration of BRP?

Lacco
2017-01-17, 03:37 PM
The sorcery in Riddle of Steel didn't really give me the impression of being usable in an actual game. Song of Swords doesn't have those rules ready yet. BoIS' magic, by the looks of it, is of the "super powerful but super dangerous" variety, but I assume it's not as out there as the RoS's system.

While I love RoS by my heart (kidding), Sorcery in RoS is as usable as as combat in FATAL.

Yes, in BoIT magic feels quite powerful (beginning sorcerer can theoretically demolish a room full of warriors) but quite dangerous. Strange is, that it feels - haven't really done any extensive testing - quite balanced with other characters.

Also, it feels a bit lovecraftian and requires healthy dose of player input. As I said, I really like it and the three players that have dared to use it have yet to complain.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-17, 03:39 PM
Have you tried some iteration of BRP?


I have a copy of Mythras I'm reading through. It comes up when I search BRP on RPG Drivethru, but it doesn't directly say that it's actually using the BRP system.

BRC
2017-01-17, 03:46 PM
To me, saying "RPG X is better than RPG Y", must mean that RPG Y can do everything RPG X can do, but better.


For example, I would say that Pathfinder is a better RPG system than D&D 3.5 (Although that's only because it started with 3.5 and built off of it). It still has a ton of problems inherited from 3.5, but I would argue that as far as "Fantasy Action-Adventure with a staggering range of character options" goes, Pathfinder is a better system than 3.5.


I like 5th edition better than Pathfinder, mostly because I find it far simpler and more elegant, especially when it comes to character creation (See above with the "Staggering number of options", which can cause information overload and make even basic character creation a slog.) But, for players who really enjoy character building, or the sensation that their characters are mechanically unique, Pathfinder is a better choice.

So, of those three systems, if you would ask me "Which system is best for fantasy action-adventure", I would say 5th Edition. If you asked me "I really enjoy picking apart character creation systems to find cool tricks, which fantasy action-adventure system should I choose", I would say Pathfinder.

Morty
2017-01-17, 03:50 PM
While I love RoS by my heart (kidding), Sorcery in RoS is as usable as as combat in FATAL.

Yes, in BoIT magic feels quite powerful (beginning sorcerer can theoretically demolish a room full of warriors) but quite dangerous. Strange is, that it feels - haven't really done any extensive testing - quite balanced with other characters.

Also, it feels a bit lovecraftian and requires healthy dose of player input. As I said, I really like it and the three players that have dared to use it have yet to complain.

If you can play a sorcerer in a party of non-sorcerers without it feeling like the latter are eclipsed, that's good enough for me. I don't really have the money to spend on a rulebook right now, but perhaps I'll take a look someday.

Maglubiyet
2017-01-17, 04:36 PM
"Sushi is everything a food should be. It's hard to find diners, though, especially ones who can overcome their years of indoctrination into the Lasagna mindset."

Apparently it's also a thing that some people take it really, really personally if someone says they like sushi better than lasagna. Even in a forum that specifically asks what type of food you like besides lasagna.


On topic - Hero system maybe?

I always loved Hero System, though never got a chance to play it again after my regular group broke up and we stopped playing Champions. Would've like to run a fantasy game with that.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-17, 04:51 PM
Apparently it's also a thing that some people take it really, really personally if someone says they like sushi better than lasagna. Even in a forum that specifically asks what type of food you like besides lasagna.


:confused:


What people "take personally" is insinuations about their preferences, both that if they don't share your preference they must have some other specific preference (the false dichotomy), and that the other preference is because of something wrong with them (ad hom).

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-17, 05:02 PM
On topic - Hero system maybe?

Heavier than I want to deal with sometimes, particularly combat-wise, but its so clean and solid to make characters in. When I read a thread like "How do I make [character] in [system that doesn't really support it]?" and it turns out the answer is taking a very specific combination of abilities, refluffing most of them, ignoring some parts that don't make sense, and having to leave some things out - I'm thinking to myself "You could make that character in Hero, no difficulty at all."

But the amount of crunchy frightens people away, and admittedly even when running smoothly it's by no means a light system, so finding players can be difficult.


It's not that crunchy, the main difficulty people have in my experience is getting their heads around that you start with what you want to do, then find the system bits that best model it, and then translate the concept into a mechanical character -- especially in a game featuring superpowers or magic. There's no "fireball" in the book, you build the spell from "energy blast" or "ranged killing attack" with modifiers applied.

HERO isn't a game -- it's a toolkit to build the game you want (at least in concept/goal, that's what it is).


My big issues with using it for non-superhero games are:

It doesn't scale down as well as one might hope -- the entire range of difference in Skill ratings for "normals" is 11 or less for an average person to 13 or less for a person human max in the base Characteristic (against a 3d6 roll). The entire range of damage rolls is very small for "normals". Etc.

The Phase/Segment actions system is, for lack of a better word, "stiff". You always take actions when you take them, and the gap is always the same. A 2 Speed character acts on 6 and 12. A 3 SPD character acts on 4, 8, and 12. Etc. And that's that.

2D8HP
2017-01-17, 05:13 PM
I have a copy of Mythras I'm reading through. It comes up when I search BRP on RPG Drivethru, but it doesn't directly say that it's actually using the BRP system.Mythras derives from 6th edition Runequest, and BRP comes from 2nd edition Runequest (which came out very soon after 1st edition, like a month later), this is due to Runequest's very weird ownership history.
They should be similar.
For a BRP derived system besides Mythras check out the Pendragon link I already posted,


Well here's a pdf sample (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj07PStxsnRAhWLqlQKHWzeAQUQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flolthefol.jdr.free.fr%2FphpBB2%2F fichiersjdr%2FPendragon%2FPendragon.-.5th.Edition.Core.Rules.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH25RJ2olEXmoRhEW6i9-yKFjBeiQ)

And:

Basic Role Playing quick start pdf - Chaosium (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiv3sPPlsrRAhUJ0mMKHfRtA8IQFgghMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chaosium.com%2Fcontent%2FFree PDFs%2FBRP%2FCHA2021%2520-%2520Basic%2520RolePlaying%2520Quick-Start.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGmy2_JQrnYDUhYIyRJT3ghBDKF-Q)

As you can probably tell, I'm very fond of the rules, perhaps because they were first written near where I live, and when I first started Adventure gaming/RPG'ing.

"Back in the day" they seemed a big change from old D&D, but now I can see the clear links.

I find it more intuitive than most RPG rules, but that may be because I learned them so early.

Cluedrew
2017-01-17, 05:38 PM
To try? Right now for me the big one is FATE, definitely has a different mindset than most other systems and I want to explore it. Everything I have read and seen of it makes me really hopeful. I would also like to try GURPS (its a pretty big system and I would like to see what it is about) and Eclipse Phase (have you seen the setting for that?).

That I enjoy but can't get people to play? Roll for Shoes. It is quite possibly the most rules like system I have ever seen, but has a very interesting and organic skill system and the set up time is about 0.

icefractal
2017-01-17, 05:59 PM
Eclipse Phase (have you seen the setting for that?).I'm in an Eclipse Phase game and it's just as awesome as it seemed. Not so much the system - that's fine but nothing out of the ordinary - but the sheer variety of the setting and the fact that it says "Yes, go for it!" to actually making use of the tech, as opposed to "Um ... we didn't balance for that, please play more like it was D&D" as some games have done. And while I'm sure it will look quaint in a couple decades, right now it feels like the future, as opposed to "the future of the past".

And it might qualify for this list too, as the game is semi-paused as a result of not enough people liking/grokking the setting. Crossing my fingers that it continues.

Thrudd
2017-01-17, 06:22 PM
Better or worse is really a matter of goals. Most games are not really good replacements for one another, but have a different focus. In the 90's, most of my friends decided White Wolf games were "better" than AD&D and we played mostly those for a few years. They aren't better games, they are apples and oranges, but we had never had oranges before, so it was more exciting. Later, people started coming back to D&D, especially when 3e came out.

I don't think I've ever had any regret about missing out on a game that is superior to one I am familiar with. But then, I've always been in groups with diverse tastes and willing to try all kinds of things. chances were if a new interesting game came out, somebody inevitably got it and we tried it. There was never a "holy moly this game is the best ever and we've been wasting our time up until now with inferior stuff" moment. We just had fun with what it was.

SimonMoon6
2017-01-17, 06:28 PM
There was a time when I thought of using all the Chaosium game systems (Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Elric, etc) to run a multiversal game featuring those particular universes and more. The problem was with their superhero system which just didn't work, at least not the way I wanted it to.

So, I decided to change game systems (while keeping the same setting). But, you know, there aren't very many game systems that actually handle super-heroes. Not Champions, not GURPS. They're designed for more mundane power levels. You can't do Superman and Green Lantern and all the rest at their *actual* comic book power level... or if you can, it's very difficult. And when you try to do someone versatile like Doctor Strange things just get weird. Champions can do it in theory but not in practice because it takes too long to readjust points.

Eventually I realized one game could handle pretty much everything: Mayfair's DC Heroes RPG. And so that's what I used ever since. I still have issues with character creation, but beyond that it simulates everything (as a superhero game should, since a superhero universe contains everything).

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-17, 06:43 PM
There was a time when I thought of using all the Chaosium game systems (Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Elric, etc) to run a multiversal game featuring those particular universes and more. The problem was with their superhero system which just didn't work, at least not the way I wanted it to.

So, I decided to change game systems (while keeping the same setting). But, you know, there aren't very many game systems that actually handle super-heroes. Not Champions, not GURPS. They're designed for more mundane power levels. You can't do Superman and Green Lantern and all the rest at their *actual* comic book power level... or if you can, it's very difficult. And when you try to do someone versatile like Doctor Strange things just get weird. Champions can do it in theory but not in practice because it takes too long to readjust points.

Eventually I realized one game could handle pretty much everything: Mayfair's DC Heroes RPG. And so that's what I used ever since. I still have issues with character creation, but beyond that it simulates everything (as a superhero game should, since a superhero universe contains everything).

Of course you can do Superman in HERO/Champions.

What you can't really do is Superman and a fair build for a street-level hero on the same number of points.

Ruslan
2017-01-17, 07:00 PM
I always wanted to try Dungeon World. I have an inkling it might be better than ... anything else, but didn't get a chance to prove so yet.

JoeJ
2017-01-17, 09:50 PM
Of course you can do Superman in HERO/Champions.

What you can't really do is Superman and a fair build for a street-level hero on the same number of points.

You can do it in M&M though (if you consider Batman street-level).

RazorChain
2017-01-17, 10:01 PM
There was a time when I thought of using all the Chaosium game systems (Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Elric, etc) to run a multiversal game featuring those particular universes and more. The problem was with their superhero system which just didn't work, at least not the way I wanted it to.

So, I decided to change game systems (while keeping the same setting). But, you know, there aren't very many game systems that actually handle super-heroes. Not Champions, not GURPS. They're designed for more mundane power levels. You can't do Superman and Green Lantern and all the rest at their *actual* comic book power level... or if you can, it's very difficult. And when you try to do someone versatile like Doctor Strange things just get weird. Champions can do it in theory but not in practice because it takes too long to readjust points.

Eventually I realized one game could handle pretty much everything: Mayfair's DC Heroes RPG. And so that's what I used ever since. I still have issues with character creation, but beyond that it simulates everything (as a superhero game should, since a superhero universe contains everything).


I agree about Gurps...it is much better in doing Avengers than Superman. By the time of Superman power levels character generation becomes a chore and there probably won´t be much balance between characters.....you could probably make character who could kill all mundanes in a single country with a thought. I mean the ability to lift 200 quintillion tons in Gurps is just going to break the scale.

Dimers
2017-01-17, 11:01 PM
I've played and enjoyed Deadlands, but it's not easy to get a group for that, especially so long after its release. It had issues but its action resolution systems were awesome. But similar to The One Ring, that's limited to a certain setting/genre; lots of assumptions are baked in.

I wish I could find a group to play a psychological / philosophical / personal game of oWoD Mage or Wraith. Exploring the nature of reality itself, or exploring the heights and depths of human nature. I'm not much of a roleplayer (more interested in the "G" than the "RP"), but I could really get into a character in those games without caring a damn thing about adventuring. But that wouldn't merely take a group of willing players and GM -- it'd take a group that's willing to shake up their assumptions, bare their souls, scare themselves as a matter of course. And the group would need to trust and care about each other, not just play together. It'd be, like, a friggin' six-person marriage.

Vitruviansquid
2017-01-17, 11:13 PM
Haven't really had this feeling.

The two main games I play are DnD 4e and Savage Worlds. While I prefer Savage Worlds overall and am currently playing it due to its greater flexibility, more dynamic pace, and ease of play, I always pine in some small way for the sheer, decadent mass of the other game.

Lacco
2017-01-18, 09:15 AM
If you can play a sorcerer in a party of non-sorcerers without it feeling like the latter are eclipsed, that's good enough for me. I don't really have the money to spend on a rulebook right now, but perhaps I'll take a look someday.

Can't really say - I haven't tried the original rules, just ported them to ROS. Maybe it's actually broken :smallbiggrin:.

Should I PM you if I ever decide to try and PbP it? :smallbiggrin:

As for the playing sorcerer in non-sorcerer party... given its roots and close connection to RoS:
Archers are extremely deadly (usually going for 1-shot-1-kill if built well) but this is offset by reload times (you can harm/kill a guy each round if you build a fast-shooter).

Sorcerers feel awesome if used well - and are quite versatile (e.g. cursing the whole bandit party so that they lose dice every time they attack/defend followed by cutting one of them in half with eldritch energies and then ordering the third to throw down the sword via making him think it's a deadly snake - these all can be done by a starting character) and can - if you play them for long enough - find Arcane Secrets - spells and rituals of absurd power (one of which lets you conjure a plague that will destroy part of the country...). This is offset by the Taint (which makes you cast weaker spells or - in case you seriously overshoot - harms you) and relatively low number of possible powers in the beginning.

Melee combatants shine in combat. The combat is sufficiently intuitive once you grasp basics (dice pools, target numbers and 4 basic manuevers - cut, thrust, parry/block and evasion) - one or two fights and you are in - but is also complex and very rewarding. Here, in this game, fighters are usually the cool ones :smallbiggrin:, cutting, thrusting, parrying, countering, disarming and dismembering opponents. Will you draw your longsword and attack with full force? Play it safe and just parry opponent's blows for few rounds to get a feel for his tactics and then use the best manuever to bring him down? Or will you quickly slash one of his arms and defend, weakening him by pain and bleeding? This is offset by the fact that they are most likely to get wounded or killed.

Fri
2017-01-18, 11:31 AM
Savage world for me.

Would really love to try with the potential to replace all the crunchy system I play. Nobody are ever interested :/

Jay R
2017-01-18, 12:04 PM
It doesn't scale down as well as one might hope -- the entire range of difference in Skill ratings for "normals" is 11 or less for an average person to 13 or less for a person human max in the base Characteristic (against a 3d6 roll). The entire range of damage rolls is very small for "normals". Etc.

Very true, but to some extent, I consider this a feature, not a bug. Normals have points in skills, and the biggest distinction in skill level is how many points you've taken in it. An average INT normal with lots of skill points in biology is better than a high INT normal with few points in it.


The Phase/Segment actions system is, for lack of a better word, "stiff". You always take actions when you take them, and the gap is always the same. A 2 Speed character acts on 6 and 12. A 3 SPD character acts on 4, 8, and 12. Etc. And that's that.

What keeps this from being as true as you think is that you can hold an action, and as long as you use it before the next one comes up, it doesn't affect the next one. A 2 Speed character can delay and then have actions of segments 11 and 12.

I once had an Ultra Boy-like character (only using one power at a time), who did this routinely, with Speed 4. He would start with his Multipower points in Invulnerability (PD & ED), and then hold his segment 3 action. At the end of Segment 5, he would take an action by turning on his super-strength and throwing a punch. At the start of segment 6, he would turn Invulnerability back on. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Edit: Thanks for pointing it out, Max

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-18, 12:12 PM
Very true, but to some extent, I consider this a bug, not a feature. Normals have points in skills, and the biggest distinction in skill level is how many points you've taken in it. An average INT normal with lots of skill points in biology is better than a high INT normal with few points in it.


Sorry... bug, or feature? Did that get reversed? I think I know what you're saying, though.

I think what you're talking about is spending added Character Points after the base 3, to raise the skill from 11- (to a better / higher "less than"). I've always thought this was a distinction in character flavor, without any mechanical effect. 13- is 13-, and the character of average INT is more of a specialist, or had to work harder, or whatever, to get there.




What keeps this from being as true as you think is that you can hold an action, and as long as you use it before the next one comes up, it doesn't affect the next one. A 2 Speed character can delay and then have actions of segments 11 and 12.

I once had an Ultra Boy-like character (only using one power at a time), who did this routinely, with Speed 4. He would start with his Multipower points in Invulnerability (PD & ED), and then hold his segment 3 action. At the end of Segment 5, he would take an action by turning on his super-strength and throwing a punch. At the start of segment 6, he would turn Invulnerability back on. Lather, rinse, repeat.


While true, it doesn't change the sort of stop-start, stilted feeling that the system gives to the combat or other action, especially once you start including a lot of movement.

ngilop
2017-01-18, 08:24 PM
I have alwasy wanted to play 2 games Heros and Godlike... but alas I have never seen the godlike rulebook apart from the very first time I have seen it in highschool in 2001 :(


Gurps is heavy rules? I have never experienced that at all..

But I Love D&D, it was my first and my fall back go to game.

and GASP Fate is good for some games as well. In fact I wish that my current set of friends and my (very very very bad)D&D group would never ever play D&D again and instead play FAT since it liek some body played with them years ago and wanted to commi suicide ( like I do) everytime they play becuase all the other players are the abosolute worse of all time then.. instead of shooting themslves in the head, the created the most awesome storytelling but not actually playing game of all time; FATE.

Oh how I wish my friends would buy, learn, and play fate so that I do not have to wash myself with bleach afterwards just to cleanse myself from the crap that I had to endure to spend some social time with friends who keep ruining it by attempting to play a game, but completely wrong.

Jay R
2017-01-18, 10:39 PM
Don't you just hate that "epiphany moment" that happens every now and then, when you realise that a game ..a game that you realise, well, that it just isn't as good as another system that no-one else plays.

No. No, I don't. Well, yes, I've played some games that aren't as good as others, but I've never felt bad about it. I've enjoyed my gaming with lots of systems. And the fact that a system just isn't as good as another system doesn't lessen my enjoyment of it one bit.

I have a favorite books, but I still love lots of books. I have a few favorite movies, but I love lots of movies. Even if I had a favorite game, why would that mean I felt bad about playing lots of games?

I've had great games with original D&D, AD&D 1e & 2e, D&D 3.5e, Chivalry and Sorcery, GURPS, Flashing Blades, Fantasy Hero, Star Hero, Champions, Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars, Kobolds Ate My Baby, and Swordsman, Starman, as well as one game with no rules at all - just a GM making decisions.

Of the above, the only ones on my list of "favorite" games are original D&D, Flashing Blades, and Champions, followed closely by the other D&D variants.


So...what's your "Better Game" that you never get to play?

Now, that's a different question. I've run both Pendragon and TOON, but never gotten to play either. I would love to get a chance to play them.

Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the 3.5e and AD&D 1e games I'm currently playing and loving.

JellyPooga
2017-01-18, 11:19 PM
No. No, I don't. Well, yes, I've played some games that aren't as good as others, but I've never felt bad about it. I've enjoyed my gaming with lots of systems. And the fact that a system just isn't as good as another system doesn't lessen my enjoyment of it one bit.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it lessens my enjoyment of the "worse" game, per se...it's just that realisation, a realisation that you've perhaps even had before, when you've been thinking about a particular aspect of a game and realised that another game does it better and then you start thinking about other aspects of the "better" game that are superior and you can't help but conclude that, despite not wanting to admit it, one is just (in your opinion) better for the style of play you want.

And then that realisation that you don't actually play that "better" game for no reason other than a lack of other players. It's more a frustration over not playing the "better" game than enjoying the "worse" game less!

daniel_ream
2017-01-18, 11:31 PM
On topic - Hero system maybe? [...] When I read a thread like "How do I make [character] [...] and it turns out the answer is taking a very specific combination of abilities, refluffing most of them, ignoring some parts that don't make sense, and having to leave some things out[...]

Just as an example of how much "better" is a matter of taste, I've found that this paragraph describes most non-trivial superhero character builds in Champions. Which is why my "better system that no one plays" is Marvel Heroic Roleplaying (and I get extra martyr points because Disney lawyered the game out of existence).

JoeJ
2017-01-19, 12:42 AM
The game system I most enjoyed playing was DC Heroes. It has a few problems; the scaling makes street-level characters seem too similar, and using hero points both during play and for character advancement always left players in my group unwilling to spend them when they really should have, and they never did really get the gadgetry rules working right IMO. But it was extremely easy for me as GM to prepare adventures (I could create NPCs as quickly as I could right them down, because nothing needs to be calculated or looked up), it has working rules for balancing combat, and the action is fast and over-the-top, the way the four-color superhero genre should be.

RazorChain
2017-01-19, 08:59 AM
I don't really buy into the whole "don't use all of them" thing; I mean, yeah, you're unlikely to want to use the space flight rules in your Iron Age fantasy game, but there's still an enormous amount of culling that needs to be done by the GM to try to maybe get the rules set they want out of GURPS, and then the players need to learn that set of options. But then, I'm generally a non-fan of "generic" systems.

Nah Gurps actually is chock full of rules you'll never bother to use like how big a hole you can dig in 2 hours, how far you can march in a day with your hiking skill, how many hit points yout equipment has and how you have to maintain it, breakdown rule etc.

Then you can chose between the simple or advanced combat system.

Then you have a lots of powers and advantages that arent appropriate for your setting and also rules about making new powers and advantages.

Then you have all the splatbooks that expand upon specific genres and expand upon the rules. For example martial arts which adds combat maneuvers and chambara fighting. Supers goes into how to run a supers campaign and adds a lot on super powers

Faily
2017-01-19, 09:57 AM
I greatly enjoy D&D/Pathfinder, and will most likely choose to play that over most options.

However, I do think that if I were to choose a "superior" game that I've played, it might just go to Ars Magica 5th edition. It's just a really well-constructed game and I've had so many great and incredible memorable moments with it.

Hunter Noventa
2017-01-19, 10:17 AM
My groups lately play pathfinder almost exclusively.

but I still really want to play Battle Century G. It's an indie mecha anime RPG I backed on Kickstarter. It is so hard to find a system that does mecha well. I think the last time we had any kind of giant robots (aside from the time the artificer built a sentai team out of converted golems) was playing the Palladium system, which is a seriously flawed system for everything.

Quertus
2017-01-19, 01:06 PM
Hmmm... Can I vote for 2e D&D as my "better" (more fun to play) game that nobody wants to play? Sure, 3e isn't bad - it has tons more options*, and a much more streamlined system / verbiage - but... it just isn't 2e. IME, 2e has both a much stronger coolness factor, and a greater accomplishment factor when characters level. Plus, I find the type of balance issues inherent in 2e conducive to many things, including the mindset of "system mastery" instead of "min-maxing", and even role-playing. And don't even get me started on the simplicity of the character creation minigame**, or how Faiths and Avatars breathed life into different religions - whether or not you were running a cleric.

I just haven't experienced the fun, the character, the cool, the depth of 2e D&D in any other system.

* more pre-built options, at least - 2e does have skills & powers, plus the class creation rules in the DMG.

** I'd rather spend hours (or days, or weeks) pouring over the history and personality of my character than their "build".


I mean "does Fate work for long-term play" comes up quite frequently, because Fate doesn't really have the kind of personal advancement progression that many players think is the cornerstone of long-term play. That's a pure D&D assumption.

So... Can you play the same FATE character for 20+ years, assuming you meet every week or two for 4-12 hours per session? Or are the characters designed to get "played out" comparitively quickly?

Can you bring a FATE character from one game / group to another, and have it feel like it is the same character? Or are characters tied to their games / will such a transfer inherently make the character lack continuity?

Because, yes, while the sense of accomplishment in leveling a D&D character is nice, this is what I mean when I talk about wanting "long-term play".


Have you tried some iteration of BRP?

BRP is the best! Wait, what are you talking about? I don't think you know my BRP...


The Phase/Segment actions system is, for lack of a better word, "stiff". You always take actions when you take them, and the gap is always the same. A 2 Speed character acts on 6 and 12. A 3 SPD character acts on 4, 8, and 12. Etc. And that's that.

So... what if the characters had a "random" starting point, similar to, say, scion, but then advanced predictably (similar to, well, scion)? Would you find that more acceptable?


I wish I could find a group to play a psychological / philosophical / personal game of oWoD Mage or Wraith. Exploring the nature of reality itself, or exploring the heights and depths of human nature. I'm not much of a roleplayer (more interested in the "G" than the "RP"), but I could really get into a character in those games without caring a damn thing about adventuring. But that wouldn't merely take a group of willing players and GM -- it'd take a group that's willing to shake up their assumptions, bare their souls, scare themselves as a matter of course. And the group would need to trust and care about each other, not just play together. It'd be, like, a friggin' six-person marriage.

Thank you for this. You've helped me see several things.

Although I'm... interested in both the "RP" and the "G"... I rarely get to explore such awesome concepts as you describe... because what I want to explore with this character in this game rarely matches what the GM is prepared to explore / what the other players want to explore... even if that happens to be as cool as what I want to focus on. That probably didn't make much sense... Hmmm... doing something this cool requires someone who can either get the whole group in sync, or do such cool things individually when the group is not in sync, and that person is someone most of my groups lack. :(

Also... for me, it would be an exploration of my character's soul, not my own. I suspect this distinction explains some of my frustration when many other people try to roleplay: they probably fail to make that distinction, perhaps because their characters don't have souls to explore.

kyoryu
2017-01-19, 01:44 PM
So... Can you play the same FATE character for 20+ years, assuming you meet every week or two for 4-12 hours per session? Or are the characters designed to get "played out" comparitively quickly?

I don't see why not. You might want to dial down some of the skill advancement a bit (but the same would be true for newer versions of D&D).

What does "played out" mean, anyway? It's a character. They go on adventures. How does the character get "played out"?

And if you wanna go really old school, most of the long term AD&D characters ended up retiring at open table games as the players switched to other characters from their "stable".


Can you bring a FATE character from one game / group to another, and have it feel like it is the same character? Or are characters tied to their games / will such a transfer inherently make the character lack continuity?

So long as the settings were compatible, I don't see why not.


BRP is the best! Wait, what are you talking about? I don't think you know my BRP...

Basic Roleplaying, probably exemplified by RuneQuest?

Make fewer assumptions. I *know* Steve. The fact that I like Fate does not mean I've got anything against other roleplaying games, even (especially?) traditional games. Heck, AD&D 1e is probably my favorite version of D&D (or maybe B/X).

JellyPooga
2017-01-19, 01:57 PM
So... Can you play the same FATE character for 20+ years, assuming you meet every week or two for 4-12 hours per session? Or are the characters designed to get "played out" comparitively quickly?

Can you bring a FATE character from one game / group to another, and have it feel like it is the same character? Or are characters tied to their games / will such a transfer inherently make the character lack continuity?

I haven't played a lot of FATE myself (it's that damned lack of players again), but I don't see why not. The main thing that might prevent a single character going from group to group or campaign to campaign is the narrative. So long as the character fits in the game-world of both games, there's really nothing stopping you. The game even encourages you to change your Aspects (which are the narrative drive behind your character) to represent the growth and change of your character, more so than any "mechanical" increase in your Skills.

Hell, even if the character doesn't fit into the game world of a new game, just change one of his/her Aspects to "From another Country/World/Dimension!" and explore the possibilities of it! FATE is very forgiving that way.

Knaight
2017-01-19, 02:07 PM
And don't even get me started on the simplicity of the character creation minigame

The phrase "character creation minigame" is one of those things that I view as a really helpful sign that I won't like a game. I favor a quick, unobtrusive process where you get the character to paper and move on, and anything that makes character creation more minigame like gets in the way of all of that.

Quertus
2017-01-19, 02:12 PM
I don't see why not. You might want to dial down some of the skill advancement a bit (but the same would be true for newer versions of D&D).

What does "played out" mean, anyway? It's a character. They go on adventures. How does the character get "played out"?

And if you wanna go really old school, most of the long term AD&D characters ended up retiring at open table games as the players switched to other characters from their "stable".

Ok... You've brought up a different angle of "character lifecycle" than I did: the point at which they are so "advanced" that either you can't find games for them any more, or they are no longer fun to play.

As to what I meant... Some games (including old-school D&D) have advancement caps, or worse, retirement caps. By the books, you can't play an old-school elf wizard for 20 years, unless you almost never get XP, or you get level drained, because they are supposed to "retire" after a certain level.

Some systems have things that build up (insanity in CoC, taint for male channelers in Wheel of Time, mutations in Warhammer Fantasy, wounds in many systems) which will eventually leave the character unplayable, on the off chance they don't die first.

And, of course, high fatality rates, such as in gritty realism combat systems, make it pretty much impossible for a character to survive combat heavy games in such systems for 20 years.

So... The only reason you couldn't play a FATE character long term is that they would be too good?

EDIT: sorry, part of what I [i]actually[/u] meant by "played out" was... more complicated. You can see part of it in that some systems have "retire" as part of their XP cycle, or have "retire" built in to "completing goals". Or... Vampire "played right": I've explored this "personal horror", so what's next? Some games are designed to self destruct if "played right".

Knaight
2017-01-19, 02:15 PM
So... The only reason you couldn't play a FATE character long term is that they would be too good?

The biggest reason is that while in early D&D it was fairly standard for GMs to include characters from other tables, most GMs wouldn't in other systems. Setting compatibility is also unlikely, so you'd basically need a GM to run the same game for 20 years. Could the system do it? Sure. Is anyone actually doing that with the system? Not that I know of, though it's popular enough that from a statistical perspective somebody is probably on year 14 of their eventual 20+ year game by now.

Quertus
2017-01-19, 02:22 PM
The biggest reason is that while in early D&D it was fairly standard for GMs to include characters from other tables, most GMs wouldn't in other systems. Setting compatibility is also unlikely, so you'd basically need a GM to run the same game for 20 years. Could the system do it? Sure. Is anyone actually doing that with the system? Not that I know of, though it's popular enough that from a statistical perspective somebody is probably on year 14 of their eventual 20+ year game by now.

That's sad. No single GM can ever provide the breadth of experience 20 GMs can provide. I want to explore my character; being able to run them at many different tables is a part of that.

ImNotTrevor
2017-01-19, 02:24 PM
Apocalypse World is one of those games designed to self-destruct when played right. But that's part of what I like about it, tbh. High-octane, things go from bad to worse to even worse on a quick timetable, and it is a system where volatile PCs who want to murder everything are...
Actually reasonably normal people, given the circumstances.

(It's also my favorite game and a game I get to play ALL THE TIME! YAAAY!)

JoeJ
2017-01-19, 02:32 PM
Hmmm... Can I vote for 2e D&D as my "better" (more fun to play) game that nobody wants to play?

Certainly.


Sure, 3e isn't bad - it has tons more options*, and a much more streamlined system / verbiage - but... it just isn't 2e. IME, 2e has both a much stronger coolness factor, and a greater accomplishment factor when characters level. Plus, I find the type of balance issues inherent in 2e conducive to many things, including the mindset of "system mastery" instead of "min-maxing", and even role-playing. And don't even get me started on the simplicity of the character creation minigame**, or how Faiths and Avatars breathed life into different religions - whether or not you were running a cleric.

I just haven't experienced the fun, the character, the cool, the depth of 2e D&D in any other system.

* more pre-built options, at least - 2e does have skills & powers, plus the class creation rules in the DMG.

** I'd rather spend hours (or days, or weeks) pouring over the history and personality of my character than their "build".

Also, priest spheres did a much better job than the domains of later additions at making priests of different deities actually feel different from one another.

Quertus
2017-01-19, 02:37 PM
Apocalypse World is one of those games designed to self-destruct when played right. But that's part of what I like about it, tbh. High-octane, things go from bad to worse to even worse on a quick timetable, and it is a system where volatile PCs who want to murder everything are...
Actually reasonably normal people, given the circumstances.

(It's also my favorite game and a game I get to play ALL THE TIME! YAAAY!)

I'm... probably going to make this too complicated. It's matter of taste - and I have both tastes. So I don't think games that are designed to self destruct are inherently bad, and sorry if it reads that way. But, they're more like a light snack, great if I'm in the mood, but the real meat of exploring a complex character? If that's what I'm in the mood for, I can't do that if things are going to fall apart.

So I only build more light, fun concepts (and role-playing stretch goals) for short term games, and save interesting, complex characters for systems where I can get time to explore the character.

I like both, for different reasons. And I like to know what I'm getting into. :smallwink:

2D8HP
2017-01-19, 02:39 PM
Hmmm... Can I vote for 2e D&D as my "better" (more fun to play) game that nobody wants to play?...
......BRP is the best! W

We may share a fondness for TSR D&D, and Chaosium BRP then.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CUGACO3WRXE/To5KSQ7_8_I/AAAAAAAAguo/aLnlf1ehXgg/s400/rpg-Stormbringer.jpg

Chaosium's old Stormbringer! (http://siskoid.blogspot.com/2011/10/rpgs-that-time-forgot-stormbringer.html?m=1) game had a "magic system" based on summoning and attempting to control demons and elementals. It was completely BADASS! and I thought it was truer to Swords and Sorcery than D&D.
The main flaw as a game was that it's random character typically generated made PC's with very wide power-levels (more so than D&D) so you'd wind up with a party of one mighty sorcerer and four drooling begger "sidekicks".

I believe that Chaosium's latest version of
Basic Roleplaying (http://www.chaosium.com/basic-roleplaying/)
has a point buy option that you can drop in.

If I'm ever forced to DM/GM again going that route would be in my top three picks.

Come to think of it, if I could somehow combine '70's rules D&D, 5e D&D, Pendragon, and Stormbringer! it would be ONE GAME TO RULE THEM ALL!

ImNotTrevor
2017-01-19, 02:44 PM
I'm... probably going to make this too complicated. It's matter of taste - and I have both tastes. So I don't think games that are designed to self destruct are inherently bad, and sorry if it reads that way. But, they're more like a light snack, great if I'm in the mood, but the real meat of exploring a complex character? If that's what I'm in the mood for, I can't do that if things are going to fall apart.

So I only build more light, fun concepts (and role-playing stretch goals) for short term games, and save interesting, complex characters for systems where I can get time to explore the character.

I like both, for different reasons. And I like to know what I'm getting into. :smallwink:

*shrug* I've had deep, complex characters in both.

I personally don't think there's sufficient to learn about a fictional character that it requires 20 years of weekly 4-hour game sessions.

We can explore all the important parts of a small-child-turned-emotionless-psychic-trying-to-fix-the-planet in 10 sessions of Apocalypse World play because... it's all characters, all the time. Where many games have combats that can take hours, the longest combat I've ever had in Apocalypse World took 5 rolls. And in those 5 rolls, 12 people died and two PCs were badly injured, and we had fun.

I lrefer having the ability to have many, many small and intense campaigns over one very long and winding campaign.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-19, 02:48 PM
I'm... probably going to make this too complicated. It's matter of taste - and I have both tastes. So I don't think games that are designed to self destruct are inherently bad, and sorry if it reads that way. But, they're more like a light snack, great if I'm in the mood, but the real meat of exploring a complex character? If that's what I'm in the mood for, I can't do that if things are going to fall apart.

So I only build more light, fun concepts (and role-playing stretch goals) for short term games, and save interesting, complex characters for systems where I can get time to explore the character.

I like both, for different reasons. And I like to know what I'm getting into. :smallwink:

Personal taste, and all, but... I don't even see the point of a game that's designed to fall apart.

ImNotTrevor
2017-01-19, 02:55 PM
The point is that it reaches its conclusion quickly, and often there's a lot of rubble left behind. The game itself doesn't stop working.

The fictional situation is what falls apart more than the game part, but things to get more intense and more chaotic as the campaign progresses until it all boils over.

icefractal
2017-01-19, 02:55 PM
Can you bring a FATE character from one game / group to another, and have it feel like it is the same character? Or are characters tied to their games / will such a transfer inherently make the character lack continuity?I've been playing D&D for at least 15 years, and I've never actually transferred a character from one campaign to another (one-shots excluded). The closest would be creating a character that's very similar to another character I hadn't had a chance to play much.

I've heard of it being a thing, but IME there's always been something that wouldn't work:
* Character is like 12th level, new game is at 2nd level. Or vice-versa.
* Setting is completely different, to the extent the character wouldn't make sense.
* Old campaign used extensive homebrew, new campaign doesn't.
* Old GM was super generous with gear/stats/etc, new one wants to keep things lower power. Or vice-versa.
* Already achieved all character's goals in the last campaign. Continuing would just be anticlimactic.
* Character wouldn't mesh with dynamic of new group.

How common is/was this in practice?

kyoryu
2017-01-19, 03:08 PM
As to what I meant... Some games (including old-school D&D) have advancement caps, or worse, retirement caps. By the books, you can't play an old-school elf wizard for 20 years, unless you almost never get XP, or you get level drained, because they are supposed to "retire" after a certain level.

Fate has none of these things.


Some systems have things that build up (insanity in CoC, taint for male channelers in Wheel of Time, mutations in Warhammer Fantasy, wounds in many systems) which will eventually leave the character unplayable, on the off chance they don't die first.

Or these things. I mean, you could build them into the a specific build of the game if you wanted to, but it's not inherent (much like insanity isn't inherent in BRP, though is part of CoC. In that way BRP:CoC as Fate:DFRPG)


And, of course, high fatality rates, such as in gritty realism combat systems, make it pretty much impossible for a character to survive combat heavy games in such systems for 20 years.

Meh. In my experience, highly lethal combat just means that the PCs make sure that they win even more. Plus most highly lethal systems have ways to take back lethality.


So... The only reason you couldn't play a FATE character long term is that they would be too good?

Your skills could inflate over time, much like they could in GURPS or even BRP. Would you stop playing a GURPS character because of too high of skills? I think the Fate advancement is, by default, slightly faster, so if I were really planning a decades-long game I'd drastically reduce skill advancement - or even eliminate it, as early versions of Fate did.


EDIT: sorry, part of what I [i]actually[/u] meant by "played out" was... more complicated. You can see part of it in that some systems have "retire" as part of their XP cycle, or have "retire" built in to "completing goals". Or... Vampire "played right": I've explored this "personal horror", so what's next? Some games are designed to self destruct if "played right".

That's not a default in Fate.


We may share a fondness for TSR D&D, and Chaosium BRP then.

Nothin' wrong with either of those :) They appeal to my inner grognard (which I really do have, despite my Fate love).

Though I hugely prefer 1e to 2e D&D. The de-emphasis of the XP for GP rule was one of the major downfalls, IMHO.


I've been playing D&D for at least 15 years, and I've never actually transferred a character from one campaign to another (one-shots excluded). The closest would be creating a character that's very similar to another character I hadn't had a chance to play much.

I've heard of it being a thing, but IME there's always been something that wouldn't work:
* Character is like 12th level, new game is at 2nd level. Or vice-versa.
* Setting is completely different, to the extent the character wouldn't make sense.
* Old campaign used extensive homebrew, new campaign doesn't.
* Old GM was super generous with gear/stats/etc, new one wants to keep things lower power. Or vice-versa.
* Already achieved all character's goals in the last campaign. Continuing would just be anticlimactic.
* Character wouldn't mesh with dynamic of new group.

How common is/was this in practice?

It's much more workable in the old-school, open-table, megadungeon style of play, since such a style of play will almost always have lots of possible characters that can be played. My opinion is the Gygaxian emphasis on "play by the rules or it's not D&D" present in AD&D 1e was to encourage transportability of characters, kind of like a primitive version of an Organized Play group.

Quertus
2017-01-19, 03:14 PM
Personal taste, and all, but... I don't even see the point of a game that's designed to fall apart.

... Have you ever had a game (not just an RPG) that went on past the point where it was fun? Or a game where, at some point, it was obvious, at least to some, how it was going to play out, but then the game took hours to get there?

Personally, I prefer to end the game when it is no longer fun. I prefer to concede a hand of Magic the Gathering when I know for a fact I cannot win* than to grind it out to its inevitable conclusion. But, for those without the foresight to know how inevitable their doom is, or those too stubborn to quit, I can see the value in designing games, for them, that are designed to self destruct. And I can play such games, just as I can play one shots.

Cigarettes are physical objects that have a definite end. E-cigarettes... don't. You smoke them as long as you want (which, hopefully, is no where near as long as it lasts). Having that defined "end" is a feature for a cigarette. Heck, having a defined end is a feature in most games - play for X time, play to Y points. I can imagine having a defined "end" being a feature in an RPG. Even if, like most cellphone features, it has no value for me, personally.

Now, yes, it is a bug in that it limits what stories you can tell with the system, what experiences you can have, etc. But, for those who see Risk as scratching a different itch than Cranium or Flux, and don't want to just own one universal board / card game, that's not a bug at all.

* that's actually very rare, though - MtG is a good game in that regard.

Max_Killjoy
2017-01-19, 03:17 PM
... Have you ever had a game (not just an RPG) that went on past the point where it was fun? Or a game where, at some point, it was obvious, at least to some, how it was going to play out, but then the game took hours to get there?


For RPGs? No, not at all.

Knaight
2017-01-19, 03:24 PM
It's much more workable in the old-school, open-table, megadungeon style of play, since such a style of play will almost always have lots of possible characters that can be played. My opinion is the Gygaxian emphasis on "play by the rules or it's not D&D" present in AD&D 1e was to encourage transportability of characters, kind of like a primitive version of an Organized Play group.

Exactly. That's pretty much where I was going with FATE - yes, it could be used to run this sort of thing. I know of literally no cases of that ever happening though, so if that matters to you early D&D is probably your best bet.

JellyPooga
2017-01-19, 03:45 PM
So... The only reason you couldn't play a FATE character long term is that they would be too good?

There are sort of some ways around this. FATE has a Skill system and as your character develops, you could in theory max out your Skills; there's a whole "pyramid" thing going on, so you can't have ALL skills at the campaign maximum, whatever that may be and there's no theoretical limit to how high your Skills can go (see later). However, each skill also has Stunts; special moves unique to your character. There's no theoretical limit on how many Stunts you can learn, but any given stunt is limited in its scope and you're not supposed to stack them too much (if at all).

This makes character growth, after a time, typically go "sideways" instead of "up"; you get better at doing a wider variety of things, but you never really reach that "godlike" stage of being able to have a mountain fall on your head and shrug it off (unless you're playing superheroes or super-giant-mecha-zords or something!), or never missing or never being hit, that sort of thing.

Theoretically, yes, you can break the "level cap" of the campaign every now and then, so if you play long enough you could in theory have Skills that are, like +10 or something (the "average" level cap is +4 for starting characters), but in order to have a skill at a certain level, you need at least one Skill at the level one below. So to have one Skill at +10, you'd need at least one other Skill at +9, another at +8 and so on down the line and you can only break the campaigns level cap once every Major Milestone, which are the ends of story arcs, major events and other significant plot points. If you played 2 adventures a year, it'd take something like a minimum of 3 years to get a single Skill to +10 and that only if you were "power-leveling" to get that +10.

So yeah, your 20 year character could get "too good", but it'd take an awful long time and there are other options to develop your character at the various milestones other than improving your Skills and they're really the only thing that would make your character "too good". You could play a FATE character for 20 years and never increase a single Skill.

Quertus
2017-01-19, 04:38 PM
I've been playing D&D for at least 15 years, and I've never actually transferred a character from one campaign to another (one-shots excluded). The closest would be creating a character that's very similar to another character I hadn't had a chance to play much.

How common is/was this in practice?

Pretty common. Let me come back to this after looking at some of your "problems".


I've heard of it being a thing, but IME there's always been something that wouldn't work:
* Character is like 12th level, new game is at 2nd level. Or vice-versa.

Level differences didn't used to be as big a deal as they are now. One of my best experiences was with a character who started at 1st level in a 7th level party*. And that's hardly the most level discrepancy I've played with. In fact, that character was... somewhere in the teens when the last new 1st level characters joined the group.

My signature character, for whom this account is named, loves to travel with lower level characters (because they tend to avoid dangerous missions) and higher level characters (because they tend to be able to keep him safe).

EDIT: the area group with the best reputation had one ongoing game, every new character starts off at 1st level. So level discrepancy was the order of the day in the "best" gaming group.

* now, it could be argued that this worked because I relied on player skills, rather than character skills - Armus was a brilliant tactician, after all. But that misses the point, IMO. The real reason this worked was because my character had a role to play (well, several roles, actually: scout, tactician, and eventually face and leader), while others had different roles (combat, logistics, finances, etc).


* Setting is completely different, to the extent the character wouldn't make sense.

That could be an issue. Except for two things. One, pretty much all of my characters are "not from around here" to begin with*; two, D&D worlds are explicitly connected (and connected to other campaign settings). So it's... kinda like telling Dr. Who that he doesn't make sense, because it's an alien world.

* my characters are "not from around here" for several reasons. The most "benevolent" of these is so that I can experience the wonder of exploring the setting. In the middle you have the fact that communication is hard, and I'll never create a character that satisfies both the GM and myself as feeling like they really belong to the setting. At the other end, you have my distaste for DMs taking a **** on my backstory. Imagine trying to describe your IRL family & friends to someone who didn't know them, then watching them roleplay a parody of them as NPCs. No thanks.


* Old campaign used extensive homebrew, new campaign doesn't.

This is a problem. It made vetting a character a conversation. This was a good thing. See below.


* Old GM was super generous with gear/stats/etc, new one wants to keep things lower power. Or vice-versa.

This... could be a problem, depending on whether or not that power level was somehow intrinsically tied to the game the DM is trying to run. It made vetting a character a conversation. This was a good thing. Continue to see below.


* Already achieved all character's goals in the last campaign. Continuing would just be anticlimactic.

Well, if you've retired the character, there's no point in bringing them on more adventures, now is there?

This put the decision of when the character was done in the player's hands, not subject to the whim of the rules, or the group breaking up. This was a feature.


* Character wouldn't mesh with dynamic of new group.

This is a problem, probably a big problem. It made vetting a character a conversation. This was a good thing.

Most experienced gamers carried a binder of characters (physical, or just in their heads), and discussed them with the DM before bringing them in. Discussed the stats and rules of the character, the DM's house rules, the personality of the character, how they would mesh with the party, how they would be introduced to the party.

Having these starting points of conversation was good, especially for socially inept gamers, to help spot any red flags before making the game toxic. Making these potential incompatibilities in playstyle, expectations, etc, as obvious as possible was a feature of transferring existing characters.

This was a feature, not a bug.

People love to tell stories about their characters. You won't hear someone say, "I'm a **** who likes to **** over the party", but you will find people who will gleefully tell you stories of their characters doing just that.

You won't hear people say, "I'm an idiot who doesn't know the rules", but you will find people whose stories show an obvious disconnect from the rules.

People didn't, and usually still don't, have good words to describe play style. But, when you ask them, "what do you like about this character?", you can get an intuitive feel for how that meshes with the group dynamic.

This is a feature of getting people to bring and describe existing characters.

Also... Creating a new 15th level character wasn't really common. First, there's "you're incompetent at playing this character - it's slowing down the game". Then there's "your character comes off as incompetent - how did they ever survive to this level?" Let alone the feeling of cheating, and robbing yourself and others of the value of their accomplishment in actually earning those levels.

No, you were much more likely to join in as the apprentice / squire to one of the existing characters, or maybe get to play as one of the existing NPCs.

-----

My signature character, for whom this account is named, has a list of custom rules, custom items, custom spells... Well, it'd take less time to learn some systems than to understand Quertus from a mechanical PoV. Depending on what does and doesn't work under the local laws of magic, I might bring Quertus, or I might pick someone else.

But, like most of my characters, Quertus is less about the mechanics, and more about the role that he plays (in his case, the very niche role of "understanding magic", with a few lesser roles, like "logistics" or "toolkit wizard" occasionally thrown in for good measure), and getting to enjoy seeing a world through his eyes.

I could have fun running Quertus in a first level party, and he needn't ruin their fun, either. Sure, not much would challenge him, but that wouldn't be anything new, and he'd still leave most everything to the rest of the party to handle, like he always does. And they wouldn't stay first level forever. :smallwink:

-----

EDIT: one concept I try to explain to these newfangled GMs is that I care about exploring a character - watching them grow, seeing how they respond to a variety of situations, etc. 20 GMs can provide a broader experience base than any single GM ever could. Although I like to create extensive backstories, no backstory can ever match actual play time for building a character. So... since my existing characters are better characters than some random new character is likely to or possibly ever could be, why would you rather that I create a new, inferior character under you that, even if it happens to be good enough to keep my interest, if everyone thinks like you, I'll never be able to play it sufficiently for my liking? Queue conversation.

-----

Oh, and what is this "campaign" thing you speak of? Sounds like some of that newfangled nonsense I've heard tell of. :smalltongue: