Favorite Fantasy Heartbreakers

[Zuras]

In light of recent events, I (like many D&D players) have been reading many posts (here and elsewhere) about alternative D&D style systems, and came across the term “Fantasy Heartbreaker”, which comes from an essay by Ron Edwards where he discusses independent fantasy RPGs that were basically re-implementations of Dungeons and Dragons, but included one or more interesting or novel ideas he found deeply engaging.

These games thus “broke his heart”, as instead of focusing on the ideas or mechanics that differentiated them from mainline D&D, the game was uninspired and bland, like watching an independent film or TV show where the director has discovered a great actor but doesn’t feature them.

The term appears to have since expanded to include games that expand upon D&D or older fantasy games in a more effective manner. In these cases the “heartbreaker” is actually original D&D, with the new game being a love letter to the game intending to correct the heartbreaking defect, whether it is lack of a coherent skill system, annoyance with the Vancian Magic system, or disappointment with the lack of detail for Name-level kingdom building rules. In this case the “heartbreaker” term seems to be used to differentiate between OSR systems that merely attempt to provide a streamlined “old school” experience and those that revise or add significant elements.

Given that definition, what are some of your favorite Fantasy Heartbreakers? I don’t necessarily mean exclusively OSR-plus games, but I’m speaking more of games like ACKS (B/X D&D scaffolding with extensive kingdom and hireling rules) than something like Worlds Without Number, which clearly draws inspiration from D&D but was built from the ground up rather than taking core D&D assumptions and bolting on new ideas.

I’m especially interested in any OSR-plus systems that did a good job of incorporating non-vancian spellcasting, psionics, or a coherent skill system on top of a classic D&D core while retaining the D&D “feel”.

[Anonymouswizard]

Absolute favourite? Probably Low Fantasy Gaming (I wonder if my premium colour coupon is still valid, I only ever used the standard colour one). Mostly because it's two big goals are recreating the gameplay loop of classic D&D (dangerous area, go and find dangerous locations to explore, then come back and blow the treasure on ale and your preferred gender of romantic partner). and returning to more of a low magic/dark fantasy feel. There's only one magic class out of five, two out of nine in the deluxe version, with an extra in the companion, and both the Magic-User and Cultist have to manage risk. Meanwhile the mundane classes get actual things they can do and will form the core of any party (if I ever run it I'll probably ban the Magic-User and force all magicians to buddy up with god's). It is clearly a D&D derivative, but it separates itself by having a clearly distinct vision to the modern game.

On the flip side I also love Blue Rose, even if I basically have to houserule it into feasible high level play (if you don't yank down Health inflation it becomes padded sumo gameplay by level 10). But it takes Green Ronin's Fantasy AGE rules (a passable D&D-alike, although Modern AGE is better in almost every way) and pairs it with an LGBT+ friendly* fantasy setting based on Romantic Fantasy. It also has magic that actually feels more like fantasy book magic, with difficult spells tiring the user and questionable use leading to Corruption. There is a 5e version available, but I do recommend the AGE version for the magic system and Stunting (rolling doubles on a test lets you do Cool Stuff, this happens just under half the time). Noncombat Stunts are a little lacking, but pillage from Modern AGE if you have it and add any cool ones people come up with to the list.

Plus you can play an intelligent animal. As in if the party wants they can all be intelligent psychic bears who run a secondhand bookstore. In Aldis you even get full rights!

* 1e is less trans friendly but is also a good decade older.

[P. G. Macer]

Does 13th Age count? If so, that game is easily my choice. The brainchild of the head designers of 3e and 4e, it plays a lot like 5e (despite debuting prior to 5e), with some borrowing of narrative-esque mechanics from indie RPGs.

[Pauly]

I tune out whenever a new system resembles D&D. My issues with D&D run deeper than something that can be fixed with a tweak or two.

I don’t particularly like D&D, nor do I want to play D&D. If I had to play a D&D like game I’d play D&D because that’s where all the players are.

[Zuras]

Does 13th Age count? If so, that game is easily my choice. The brainchild of the head designers of 3e and 4e, it plays a lot like 5e (despite debuting prior to 5e), with some borrowing of narrative-esque mechanics from indie RPGs.

It sort-of counts. It seems more of a complete reformulation of D&D trying to accomplish a bunch of goals, rather than just one big idea added onto the D&D chassis, but I’m not familiar enough with it to break down its critical non D&D-isms, other than knowing it’s class/level based with a very different take on the skill system.


I tune out whenever a new system resembles D&D. My issues with D&D run deeper than something that can be fixed with a tweak or two.

I don’t particularly like D&D, nor do I want to play D&D. If I had to play a D&D like game I’d play D&D because that’s where all the players are.

What do you consider the key aspects of D&D type games? The class/level progression rather than skill/point progression, or some other aspect.

I don’t particularly like class/level systems for modern or sci-fi campaigns, but I haven’t found any skill-based system that captures the transformation of characters from apprentices to Archmages like D&D.

In something like GURPS you go from about 4th to 7th level in character competence relative to D&D over the course of a campaign, which is fine for a swords and sorcery campaign but disappointing if your players want to be low-level superheroes able to fight full-size dragons by the end of the story.

In a fully narrative game like FATE I don’t really know how you capture the difference between threats at the same level as a class/level system at all. Mechanically, an ogre and a hill giant are a lot harder to distinguish in FATE, since narratively they serve the same purpose (besides giants being able to throw rocks).

[Pauly]

What do you consider the key aspects of D&D type games? The class/level progression rather than skill/point progression, or some other aspect.

I don’t particularly like class/level systems for modern or sci-fi campaigns, but I haven’t found any skill-based system that captures the transformation of characters from apprentices to Archmages like D&D.
.

What, for me makes a game D&D like.
1) Classes. Especially when classes are treated as matrix style brain dumps, not an extensive and intensive years long apprenticeship and training as modern D&D treats multi-classing.
2) Level progression, with a zero to god-like progression.
3) Where a combination of (1) and (2) rewards extensive pre-planning and character optimization over organic growth if the character.
4) Bonuses being more important than abilities. If I put 10 points into diplomacy for my CHA 6 rogue they’ll be a better party face than the CHA 18 paladin who uses their skill points elsewhere.
Edit to add
5) Vancian magic. It’s good as a game mechanic, but I find it very unpersuasive and difficult to accept as believable.
6) Puzzle monsters that that have the effect of turning an RPG into a resource management game.

[The Glyphstone]

I thought the build-a-class element integral to Legend (born here on GITP, in fact) was a very neat idea.

[Anonymouswizard]

6) Puzzle monsters that that have the effect of turning an RPG into a resource management game.

Man, remind me to never introduce you to diceless games.

Although it sounds like you're mainly against D&D 3.5, with a bit of 5e in there. Half of your complaints don't apply to other editions (particularly the multiclassing one).

Like, I hate D&D as well, but it's like five completely different systems at this point. For me a lot of it is the dungeons, which is why I'm fine with stuff like 13th Age.

As to resource management, D&D is really nowhere near the top of the list. Multiple games base their core loop around resource management, with stats mainly existing to let you do anything without getting tired. In Glitch even paying your bills will exhaust you if you haven't invested in the right stat. So it feels really weird to single out D&D for it.

[Easy e]

Thank you for explaining what a Heartbreaker is in a way I can somewhat understand. I never really understood the term before.

[Zuras]

Thank you for explaining what a Heartbreaker is in a way I can somewhat understand. I never really understood the term before.

“Fantasy Heartbreaker” is a strong contender for top terms that cause forum discussions to break down into arguments over definitions. Not as bad as “powergaming” and “munchkin”, but enough to warrant a paragraph of definition before discussion.

[RedWarlock]

“Fantasy Heartbreaker” is a strong contender for top terms that cause forum discussions to break down into arguments over definitions. Not as bad as “powergaming” and “munchkin”, but enough to warrant a paragraph of definition before discussion.

It's a very loaded term, with too much negative feel, in my view, for what it represents. It's someone's homebrew for what fixes the game for them, and it works fine for them, and maybe for SOME others, but it's not "perfect" to replace D&D for most EVERYONE, so it becomes a "heartbreaker", which feels bad.

I really feel like it could benefit from that shared framework of the SRD, listed in terms of difference packages, like the sections of Unearthed Arcana. It's X (D&D, to start), but we add package W, Y, and Z.

[Zuras]

It's a very loaded term, with too much negative feel, in my view, for what it represents. It's someone's homebrew for what fixes the game for them, and it works fine for them, and maybe for SOME others, but it's not "perfect" to replace D&D for most EVERYONE, so it becomes a "heartbreaker", which feels bad.

I really feel like it could benefit from that shared framework of the SRD, listed in terms of difference packages, like the sections of Unearthed Arcana. It's X (D&D, to start), but we add package W, Y, and Z.


Sadly, because D&D is a class/level based system, bolt on modularity is difficult. Anything impacting combat has to be version specific to avoid balance issues. A giant chart of different RPGs and their critical ideas in comparison/contrast to D&D would be a cool document, though.

[Anonymouswizard]

“Fantasy Heartbreaker” is a strong contender for top terms that cause forum discussions to break down into arguments over definitions. Not as bad as “powergaming” and “munchkin”, but enough to warrant a paragraph of definition before discussion.

That does raise the question, do the Munchkin RPG books count as a fantasy heartbreaker? :smalltongue:

I'll agree on the term mostly referring to published systems that boil down to a group's extensive D&D houserules, or very occasionally some other big system (I believe there's a WoD Heartbreaker out there somewhere as well as the various parodies). I've seen people express the desire to publish the system their group has come up with over the last 10 years of playing D&D, and I can never stop myself from suggesting that they play a game of something else, even if just for a month or two, to get a bit of perspective. Because while at the upper end you get high quality products like Pathfinder and Pathfinder 2e, more likely we're looking at DeadEarth levels of 'well it made sense to us' and at worst FATAL levels of misjudgement (roll for head circumference, otherwise you don't know if you can wear the magic helmet).

[Luccan]

Don't know how this counts (not the least because is post-apocalyptic science-fantasy mostly based on an 80s cartoon) but I just got Barbarians of the Ruined Earth. Classes are evocative and the tone is definitely not too serious. Takes D&D stats, makes it a roll under, DM only rolls for effects and damage system, adding in 5e Advantage/Disadvantage. I've never played the Black Hack, which it pulls from, but I assume that's where it gets much of its mechanics. Class determines damage, weapons determine your effectiveness against certain foes and let you deal more damage assuming you don't have claws. The two "casters" (Death Priest and Sorcerer) don't use Vancian casting. Death Priest miracles just work (assuming the effect has no roll in the description), but are limited in castings per day. Sorcerer spells can be cast as often as you want, but spells outside your list of know spells receive disadvantage and failure for known or unknown spells results in losing casting for the day. There are beastmen and raptorfolk and robots. All very cool, zany late 70s/early 80s fun

And for me the heartbreaking part is that it's very obvious this was made by one person.Example: Raptorfolk are proficient with maces (but not clubs) and the random weapon generator in the book doesn't have maces at all (but does have clubs). What's the difference? That's what I'd like to know, because other classes are also proficient with maces and clubs as two separate weapon classifications. Both Raptorfolk and Beastmen have claws, allowing them to deal their Weapon damage with unarmed attacks (unarmed and improvised weapoin attacks use a lower damage die than regular weapon attacks for most characters) but the Beastmen just don't list unarmed damage, while the raptorfolk due list their lower unarmed damage in the relevant section, but then both have class abilities that essentially say "your unarmed damage is the same as your weapon damage". None of this makes the game bad or unplayable, I just know it will cause issues with my group's understanding at some point

[Zuras]

Don't know how this counts (not the least because is post-apocalyptic science-fantasy mostly based on an 80s cartoon) but I just got Barbarians of the Ruined Earth. Classes are evocative and the tone is definitely not too serious. Takes D&D stats, makes it a roll under, DM only rolls for effects and damage system, adding in 5e Advantage/Disadvantage. I've never played the Black Hack, which it pulls from, but I assume that's where it gets much of its mechanics. Class determines damage, weapons determine your effectiveness against certain foes and let you deal more damage assuming you don't have claws. The two "casters" (Death Priest and Sorcerer) don't use Vancian casting. Death Priest miracles just work (assuming the effect has no roll in the description), but are limited in castings per day. Sorcerer spells can be cast as often as you want, but spells outside your list of know spells receive disadvantage and failure for known or unknown spells results in losing casting for the day. There are beastmen and raptorfolk and robots. All very cool, zany late 70s/early 80s fun.



I honestly don’t know if Barbarians of the Ruined Earth is technically a heartbreaker, but it sounds like it fits my criteria of an OSR game that’s not a retroclone but instead incorporates more modern rules ideas while not trying to re-think the entire class/level system.

[Anonymouswizard]

I honestly don’t know if Barbarians of the Ruined Earth is technically a heartbreaker, but it sounds like it fits my criteria of an OSR game that’s not a retroclone but instead incorporates more modern rules ideas while not trying to re-think the entire class/level system.

This reminds me of Iron Falcon, the game made because Basic Fantasy wasn't enough like B/X to count as a retroclone. The author basically described it as being made of of annoyance that he'd been kicked out of his own movement.

Basic Fantasy and Iron Falcon are also don't fall into Fantasy Heartbreaker territory, seeing as they lay out what they want to deliver, deliver exactly that, and are published at cost. Basic Fantasy even has my favourite supplement of all D&D-alikes, and it's the slim tome just pricing various pieces of equipment and clothing. Well worth the ~£3 I spent.

[ahyangyi]

5) Vancian magic. It’s good as a game mechanic, but I find it very unpersuasive and difficult to accept as believable.

Vancian magic actually started as a novel device, so, I'd argue it's more about a genre expectation problem.

[Zuras]

This reminds me of Iron Falcon, the game made because Basic Fantasy wasn't enough like B/X to count as a retroclone. The author basically described it as being made of of annoyance that he'd been kicked out of his own movement.

Basic Fantasy and Iron Falcon are also don't fall into Fantasy Heartbreaker territory, seeing as they lay out what they want to deliver, deliver exactly that, and are published at cost. Basic Fantasy even has my favourite supplement of all D&D-alikes, and it's the slim tome just pricing various pieces of equipment and clothing. Well worth the ~£3 I spent.

The idea that Basic Fantasy isn’t a retroclone seems ludicrous to me. That’s like purists declaring a rebuilt classic car isn’t authentic because it has modern seatbelts and doesn’t use leaded gas.

As to what to call them, in a grand taxonomy of D&D inspired games? Perhaps “streamlined retroclone” is the right term? D&D didn’t really have a consistent skill system till 3rd edition, so replacing the skill system or simplifying the AC math while trying to reach the same results doesn’t feel untrue to the old school experience to me.

I feel like a Heartbreaker needs to be attempting something different from baseline D&D, like different magic/psionics rules, significant class differences, or some other big, noticeable swing. A true Heartbreaker connects on that big swing, but the rest of the system falls flat, while a theoretical Heartbreaker doesn’t have any deep flaws, but still has one well executed idea you can imagine someone wanting to adapt from the system even if the rest of it doesn’t interest them.

Games like Basic Fantasy and Lightmaster are almost the opposite of a Heartbreaker, where the changes to the original game (or games) are intended to remove the annoying/heartbreaking bits while keeping the rest of the system intact. Which bits are essential to keep in is obviously a matter of taste. There’s very little point in emulating Rolemaster without using the Magic system and ridiculous critical hit tables, while any D&D semi-retroclone seems fit for purpose if you can use it to run an old module with minimal conversion.

{update}
The variety and quality of heavily modified D&D derivatives and out there is staggering. The term Heartbreaker seems a bad fit for most of them, since the designers seem to know exactly what they are doing tearing down the D&D mechanisms and rebuilding something that feels similar but plays differently out of the pieces. The main differentiation seems to be just how radically minimal the designers take the rule sets, and I could make a list at least 20 games deep without listing a game without at least enough success to spawn a significant fan base and multiple revisions/editions

My current reading list of (non) Heartbreakers
13th Age
The White Hack
Beyond the Wall
Worlds Without Number
Warlock! (a rebuild of FF & WFRPG, not D&D)
Knave
Maze Rats

[Anonymouswizard]

Man, I though the TV licence people were annoying, but now I also need one for coitus?


Vancian magic actually started as a novel device, so, I'd argue it's more about a genre expectation problem.

Having read the dying earth books, or at least the first two, Vancian magic in it's original form is pretty different to the D&D version, and potentially more fun. No spell levels, a cap on spells currently memorised instead of spells/day, only a handful of spells even for master magicians. It feels like a bigger challenge, but also less bookkeeping.


Anyway, recently picked up my copy of Romance of the Perilous Land for a reread. It's an attempt to do King Arthur and Robin Hood using what I believe is a mix of Black Hack 1e and D&D5e rules. It's pretty nice, no multiclassing or subclasses but Talents allow a bit of dabbling, skills just give you straight up advantage, and a few minor issues like hp scaling but no damage scaling until the later levels. It's also pretty low magic, with Cunning Folk having to deal with the fact that spell points don't increase with level and even Excalibur being just a +1 longsword. But it's let down by, of all things, the knock-on effects of it's opposed roll system.

It's pretty much fine in and of itself, subtract the opponent's level from your stat before rolling. But this means that to stop anybody from getting left behind all stats increase by two at every other level, so difficulty modifiers have to scale to stop tasks from become too easy, but standard difficulty doesn't. So everybody just kind of becomes baseline competent at everything, in a way they wouldn't with a normal opposed roll system.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Does the one I (effectively) wrote count? (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?329161-Giants-and-Graveyards-Grod-s-collected-3-5-revisions)

[Zuras]

Does the one I (effectively) wrote count? (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?329161-Giants-and-Graveyards-Grod-s-collected-3-5-revisions)

Not in my opinion. It’s still “incredibly extensive house rules” since you made every effort to maintain compatibility with the core 3.5 rules. For it to be a real heartbreaker you’d need at least a couple of interesting but ill-considered completely new rules (like bringing in advantage/disadvantage), or to have written it to run on a Microlite20 base (and recreated many of the needed rules to duplicate 3.5 all by yourself, with uneven results).

I think it’s honestly pretty difficult to put out a true fantasy heartbreaker these days. The internet makes publishing incredibly easy, but it also provides instant feedback, and lots of potential playtesters for something that looks cool but needs polish.

There are a lot of games out there that *should* be heartbreakers—D&D remixes that do a bunch of things differently, or even completely tear down and rebuild the entire system. Instead of breaking your heart, though, they manage to do exactly what they set out to do, and actually answer the question ”why should I play this instead of just playing 5e, Pathfinder, or an OSR retroclone?”.

For example, by all rights, Beyond the Wall should be a full-on heartbreaker, and instead it’s just amazing. It makes big changes to D&D’s Magic system, and I honestly don’t know how well it would hold up if you played all the way to 10th level, but as a one-shot or short campaign experience it delivers exactly what it promises.

[Marcloure]

Sadly, D&D 4e is a huge fantasy heartbreaker to me. There are so many things in that edition that are improvements over the more usual D&D, actually I think most of it is, but then you play the whole package and something is missing. Also, the math breaks after the 11th level to an irreparable degree.

Does it have to be based on D&D? If not, another one for me is Mythras. Reading the book everything seemed so perfect to me, a Passions system, related skills give bonuses, the armor and weapon design, all the different types of magic, just awesome stuff. Then you play it and it's fine most of the time, until you get to combat. The way combat works makes it so that when two combatants face each other, they have this very long dance of strike and parry until one of them suffers from exhaustion. Reading that, yeah, makes total sense, that is how it would work in a movie, but playing it made combat such a drag for the first few rounds that it killed the game to me. Such a shame.

[Zuras]

Sadly, D&D 4e is a huge fantasy heartbreaker to me. There are so many things in that edition that are improvements over the more usual D&D, actually I think most of it is, but then you play the whole package and something is missing. Also, the math breaks after the 11th level to an irreparable degree.

Does it have to be based on D&D? If not, another one for me is Mythras. Reading the book everything seemed so perfect to me, a Passions system, related skills give bonuses, the armor and weapon design, all the different types of magic, just awesome stuff. Then you play it and it's fine most of the time, until you get to combat. The way combat works makes it so that when two combatants face each other, they have this very long dance of strike and parry until one of them suffers from exhaustion. Reading that, yeah, makes total sense, that is how it would work in a movie, but playing it made combat such a drag for the first few rounds that it killed the game to me. Such a shame.

Heartbreakers don’t have to be D&D, the antecedent system (or systems) just needs to be obvious. Was Mythras based on BRP/
RuneQuest?


Don't know how this counts (not the least because is post-apocalyptic science-fantasy mostly based on an 80s cartoon) but I just got Barbarians of the Ruined Earth. Classes are evocative and the tone is definitely not too serious. Takes D&D stats, makes it a roll under, DM only rolls for effects and damage system, adding in 5e Advantage/Disadvantage. I've never played the Black Hack, which it pulls from, but I assume that's where it gets much of its mechanics. Class determines damage, weapons determine your effectiveness against certain foes and let you deal more damage assuming you don't have claws. The two "casters" (Death Priest and Sorcerer) don't use Vancian casting. Death Priest miracles just work (assuming the effect has no roll in the description), but are limited in castings per day. Sorcerer spells can be cast as often as you want, but spells outside your list of know spells receive disadvantage and failure for known or unknown spells results in losing casting for the day. There are beastmen and raptorfolk and robots. All very cool, zany late 70s/early 80s fun

And for me the heartbreaking part is that it's very obvious this was made by one person.Example: Raptorfolk are proficient with maces (but not clubs) and the random weapon generator in the book doesn't have maces at all (but does have clubs). What's the difference? That's what I'd like to know, because other classes are also proficient with maces and clubs as two separate weapon classifications. Both Raptorfolk and Beastmen have claws, allowing them to deal their Weapon damage with unarmed attacks (unarmed and improvised weapoin attacks use a lower damage die than regular weapon attacks for most characters) but the Beastmen just don't list unarmed damage, while the raptorfolk due list their lower unarmed damage in the relevant section, but then both have class abilities that essentially say "your unarmed damage is the same as your weapon damage". None of this makes the game bad or unplayable, I just know it will cause issues with my group's understanding at some point

After doing some more reading, it looks like the most likely source of flawed gems in rpg design today is setting-specific mash-ups or tweaks of minimalist rewrites of D&D coming out of the OSR. The sheer number of variants on the Black Hack alone is so large, there’s no way they’re all well done, let alone classics.

[Anonymouswizard]

Sadly, D&D 4e is a huge fantasy heartbreaker to me. There are so many things in that edition that are improvements over the more usual D&D, actually I think most of it is, but then you play the whole package and something is missing. Also, the math breaks after the 11th level to an irreparable degree.

Before 13th Age came out I'd have argued that there are reasons to play it over other editions. But yes, 4e really needed to get off the supplement treadmill and work on a second edition that fixed most of the issues.

Interestingly I had the same kind of issue with 5e. When I read it it seemed okay, even if not my thing, but when I played it the game just felt meh. Like, it all functions fine, but there's nothing it excels at, nothing exciting.


Does it have to be based on D&D? If not, another one for me is Mythras. Reading the book everything seemed so perfect to me, a Passions system, related skills give bonuses, the armor and weapon design, all the different types of magic, just awesome stuff. Then you play it and it's fine most of the time, until you get to combat. The way combat works makes it so that when two combatants face each other, they have this very long dance of strike and parry until one of them suffers from exhaustion. Reading that, yeah, makes total sense, that is how it would work in a movie, but playing it made combat such a drag for the first few rounds that it killed the game to me. Such a shame.

If we're going for non-D&D systems I have one: Sigil & Shadow.

This was a game I was actively excited for, the previews made it look like it was about playing a modern day mage in a world of lies and questionable truth, with evocative magic in the style of Unknown Armies. It seemed cool and interesting but then it came out, and it was basically 'world of darkness in a single book'.

But the really heartbreaking part was the magic. The rules were fine, if nothing special for a 'make a spell on the fly' system. But there was none of the development I expected, with the six elemental styles and four example modern varieties getting a basic outline of their core idea in a single paragraph and three example spells. As somebody used to the level of detail in Unknown Armies adept schools it was surprising and disappointing.

It also didn't help that, while the rules were fine, magic was designed in a way that Spellcasters would almost certainly take up large chunks of game time just batch preparing potentially useful spells, particularly if the group wasn't playing monsters. Particularly if you want to abuse the fact that you can nab bottom ranked spells from literally any school, and schools like techomancy (focused on information gathering via tech) are very powerful.

A decent game let down by a lack of vision and questionable decisions on what to focus on.