Good System for Prehistoric Game?

[Urpriest]

Exactly what it says in the thread title. I'm looking for a good system to play a game set in Europe during the last major ice age. Characters would be Neanderthals and/or Cro Magnons in a struggling tribe. I want the setting to have magic in it, but only accessible to players later in the game. Currently I'm considering a modified version of d20 Past. Any suggestions?

[Aroka]

RuneQuest (the new Mongoose version is great). RuneQuest all the way. Skill-based, relatively lethal, and the default setting (Glorantha) is full of stuff like sabretooths, mammoths, and dinosaurs already. Magic is cool and skill-based, power levels scale nicely.

Damnit, now I want to play a RuneQuest game of primitive survival and hunter-gathering.

[Satyr]

Gurps is always an option, and usually not the worst one. There was an Ice Age sourcebook for Gurps but it is in itself prehistoric by now. The soon to be published Low Tech however will cover stone age technology and societies.

The other alternative I can think of is the Unisystem. Mostly because of this awesome fan module.

[Soren Hero]

you might want to look into the E6 campaign rules..available at http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-leg...sion.html...it seems perfect for your setting...being lower level makes the world a much more dangerous place...if you want a low magic world, just restrict the amount of magical classes available...for instance, you could keep druids because their magic is based in nature, as opposed to clerics whose magic is based in divine gods/concepts, which might not exist in a pre-historic world...just my two cents

[Psyx]

If you want a major part of the struggle to be against the environment, then you need a skill system that isn't complete and utter rubbish. So: No d20. I'd look at Runequest, or maybe Gurps as suggested. Pendragon isn't bad for low fantasy either.

You also need it to be more character than equipment based. A player's greatest asset will be his head, as he won't have his listening helmet, bag of holding and +5 vorpal sword.

[Urpriest]

you might want to look into the E6 campaign rules..available at http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-leg...sion.html...it seems perfect for your setting...being lower level makes the world a much more dangerous place...if you want a low magic world, just restrict the amount of magical classes available...for instance, you could keep druids because their magic is based in nature, as opposed to clerics whose magic is based in divine gods/concepts, which might not exist in a pre-historic world...just my two cents

To explain a little further what I mean by low-magic, I'm thinking about a campaign in which the players discover/invent magic mid-way through. So since normal D&D (and by extension E6) gimp people who multiclass into casters later in the game, that's less appealing. One of the appealing features of d20 Past is that all casters are "advanced classes", and the game is balanced around players gaining spells partway through.

In my experience point-buy systems tend to make acquiring useful magic part-way through a tricky proposition (since magic usually requires a large point investment which is only practical at character generation), but my experience with GURPS is very limited and I have no experience with RuneQuest. Can either of these systems handle late-game acquisition of magic well?

[Serpentine]

I just found this. No idea what it's like.

[Kaje]

DnD gimps people who multiclass into casters late in the game as opposed to other casters, but as opposed to full martial characters? I'm not so sure.

[Urpriest]

DnD gimps people who multiclass into casters late in the game as opposed to other casters, but as opposed to full martial characters? I'm not so sure.

At low levels, sure. Quite a few lower-level spells have hit dice limits, or are restricted to certain creature types that are commonly encountered at low levels. Getting those abilities at higher level than intended makes them significantly weaker. I agree that the difference isn't huge, but still it's harder to fill a pure caster role (as opposed to, say, a gish) when you've multiclassed in after 3-5 levels.

[Aroka]

To explain a little further what I mean by low-magic, I'm thinking about a campaign in which the players discover/invent magic mid-way through. So since normal D&D (and by extension E6) gimp people who multiclass into casters later in the game, that's less appealing. One of the appealing features of d20 Past is that all casters are "advanced classes", and the game is balanced around players gaining spells partway through.

In my experience point-buy systems tend to make acquiring useful magic part-way through a tricky proposition (since magic usually requires a large point investment which is only practical at character generation), but my experience with GURPS is very limited and I have no experience with RuneQuest. Can either of these systems handle late-game acquisition of magic well?

Both of them can, yes. It's just a matter of learning a set of skills in both - both games are skill-based, with no classes or levels. RuneQuest has multiple sets of magic; in the latest version (Mongoose's 2nd edition), they are...

- Common Magic. The simplest form. You learn a single skill, and then you individually learn spells somehow (the basic method is being taught, but there's no object to making PCs research individual spells, or learn them through finding ancient runes, or any other method). Spells scale in power, and you only learn a spell up to a certain power.

- Sorcery/Wizardry. You learn a general Manipulation skill that determines the power of your sorcery (so the spells scale in power depending on your progression), and you learn individual casting skills for Grimoires, each of which contain a certain number of spells. Sorcery is generally versatile and durable.

- Divine Magic. You dedicate Power to a deity and get spells in exchange. You learn two skills - one to cast the spells, and one that determines their power and how fast you recharge them (divine spells are "used up" when cast and have to recharge). Divine magic has the most sheer power, but isn't as versatile as Sorcery.

- Animism/Shamanism/Spirit Magic. You learn two skills to interact with the spirit world and the spirits that dwell there. Rather than casting spells (although most shamans in default RQ know Common Magic), you summon and bind spirits, possibly exchanging services with them. Each spirit, when called upon, either performs an action (like defending you against magical attack) or merges with you to grant you a bonus (the speed of a wolf, deadly precision of the mantis, blah blah).

You can give PCs access to magic at any point, give them whatever spells you want, and start their skills at any level you think appropriate. There's no pretense of "balance" or other pretext of structure to it.

[Urpriest]

Being inexperienced in comparative RPGs, I'm not sure what you mean by "skill-based". Would you consider World of Darkness to be a skill-based system?

[TricksyAndFalse]

This is more comedic than I think you are looking for, but:

http://www.firefly-games.com/catalog...products_id=55

It's called Og. You play a caveman, and your character's vocabulary is limited by your int. A smart caveman might be able to say "Go! Big thing!" to tell his friends to run from an approaching dinosaur. A less smart one might only be able to shout "Big! Big!" to warn his friends. There are 18 total vocabulary words in the game.

[hamishspence]

While 3.5 probably isn't a good system, it might be OK if the characters are playing at low level, low magic.

Splatbooks: Frostburn, maybe Sandstorm and Stormwrack.

Sandstorm is probably better for further south, but Stormwrack is OK- cavemen in boats is not implausible.

[Tetsubo 57]

While 3.5 probably isn't a good system, it might be OK if the characters are playing at low level, low magic.

Splatbooks: Frostburn, maybe Sandstorm and Stormwrack.

Sandstorm is probably better for further south, but Stormwrack is OK- cavemen in boats is not implausible.

Seeing as our neolithic ancestors populate most of the planet that way I would way it was more than plausible.

[Urpriest]

Seeing as our neolithic ancestors populate most of the planet that way I would way it was more than plausible.

True, though I was intending to focus the campaign on areas of overlap with the Neanderthals, so northern Europe-ish areas. If I do end up using d20 past there's a bunch of stuff I can adapt from Frostburn (Neanderthals and Saber-tooths being most prominent).

[Starshade]

3. editon GURPS do got some books aiming at archaic times (the previous gurps version, the current edition is 4.). They sell electronic copies of all 3. ed books though if there isnt anyone to find, if gurps is what you want.

Though, i think the basic gurps book set, Basic set caracters, and Basic set campagins, is the only books one "need" beside creativity if you use gurps, for a lot of genres, including prehistoric games.

Sadly, i know soo little about other potential good archaic rpg systems, though, i think i remember it exist some Call of Cthulhu stories set to archaic ages, medival, greek, and perhaps back to its mythical time "where things walks the earth" in stone/ice ages.

[Aroka]

Being inexperienced in comparative RPGs, I'm not sure what you mean by "skill-based". Would you consider World of Darkness to be a skill-based system?

Kind of, although WoD is a bit on the edge - I guess the clans and such are more archetypes than classes, though, since they don't place hard limits on your abilities.

But both RuneQuest and GURPS take it further than that - you can train up your skills without any need for experience from the GM.

Skill-based systems are ones where your abilities are defined by your skills, which usually increase without artificial limits and tresholds. like levels and classes. Instead of an "attack bonus", you just have combat skills. Instead of an "armor class", you use the combat skills to defend yourself.

[Tyrmatt]

Another vote for GURPS, given that the stats for all the weapons and tech is in the Basic Set and the Low Tech book, though I believe its' quite an old edition, can be grabbed in PDF form from the website for a measly 6$.

Its' also pretty visceral and promotes the "only the strong survive" motif that should permeate a good Caveman run.

[Urpriest]

Kind of, although WoD is a bit on the edge - I guess the clans and such are more archetypes than classes, though, since they don't place hard limits on your abilities.

But both RuneQuest and GURPS take it further than that - you can train up your skills without any need for experience from the GM.

Skill-based systems are ones where your abilities are defined by your skills, which usually increase without artificial limits and tresholds. like levels and classes. Instead of an "attack bonus", you just have combat skills. Instead of an "armor class", you use the combat skills to defend yourself.

So it's point-buy, like GURPS? The reason I'm a little leery about using a point-buy system (as mentioned earlier) is that generally characters gain few points between sessions, and as such the character's significant capabilities are mostly determined at character generation. Skills can get picked up, but they won't end up having as much of an impact unless they're bought as part of the initial point buy.

It's been commented that RuneQuest doesn't really have a "balanced" structure such that that's really a problem, though, and that may make my above concerns irrelevant.

[fryplink]

Being inexperienced in comparative RPGs, I'm not sure what you mean by "skill-based". Would you consider World of Darkness to be a skill-based system?

Think of skill-based as something like The elder scrolls (w/o the 10 skill/level deal) or RuneScape, in that instead of a level determining attack power and strength, a skill in the relevant combat style determines that.

For example: Instead of being a scor 5/drd 6 I might have the following skills: swordsmanship 2, arcane power 7, nature magic 7, shape-shifting 4, with production and creation skills being integrated among the skills (though sometimes under a different heading)

(if I totally missed the boat tell me and I'll edit the post away)

[Aroka]

Think of skill-based as something like The elder scrolls (w/o the 10 skill/level deal) or RuneScape, in that instead of a level determining attack power and strength, a skill in the relevant combat style determines that.

For example: Instead of being a scor 5/drd 6 I might have the following skills: swordsmanship 2, arcane power 7, nature magic 7, shape-shifting 4, with production and creation skills being integrated among the skills (though sometimes under a different heading)

(if I totally missed the boat tell me and I'll edit the post away)

Your actual explanation is good, but the examples are awful - all the TES games use levels and classes, and AFAIK Runescape has both, too. Those are, at best, hybrids. (At least in TES, advancing skills raises your level, rather than the other way around, even if that's a completely borked system in all four incarnations.)

So it's point-buy, like GURPS? The reason I'm a little leery about using a point-buy system (as mentioned earlier) is that generally characters gain few points between sessions, and as such the character's significant capabilities are mostly determined at character generation. Skills can get picked up, but they won't end up having as much of an impact unless they're bought as part of the initial point buy.

RuneQuest isn't point-buy. You create a character by rolling dice for attributes (or, at the GM's option, splitting so-and-so many points among them), and get a number of skill points (depending on some variables) to split among your skills. There's no general pool of points and no general buying. To class RQ as point-buy you'd have to class D&D as point-buy. After character creation, skills and attributes advance by practice and by Improvement Rolls granted by the GM and distributed by the player (older editions just had a check-box next to the skill that you checked upon success with a skill, GM permitting, to remind you to check for advancement of that skill at the next downtime). The GM has total control over how much of anything the PCs get at character creation, and pretty total control over how much advancement opportunities they get.

It's been commented that RuneQuest doesn't really have a "balanced" structure such that that's really a problem, though, and that may make my above concerns irrelevant.

D&D (and d20 derivates) is the only game with a "balance structure" that I'm aware of (out of dozens of RPGs I have played), and it is completely borked. The illusion of balance is probably worse than a lack of balance. RuneQuest, just like GURPS, is simulationist - if you go up against a dude with a spear, you can get it stuck in your belly and die just like that, or you might not. You're not going to fight a hour-long battle where DPS and HP determine the winner.

Heck, even AD&D didn't have a balance structure. Just like 99% of RPGs, you had to assess the capabilities of the party against the capabilities of the enemy and guess if they'd have a chance at it. Of course, most non-D&D games don't have anything inherently requiring PCs to fight enemies in order to progress; if RQ PCs don't have a good reason to get in a fight, they shouldn't. (Of course, in dangerous and primitive worlds, such reasons are plentiful.)

[Urpriest]

A practice-based skill system (as opposed to strictly point-based) seems like a reasonable way to do this, then. I'll look into RuneQuest. It may require more DM fiat then I'd be comfortable using with an unfamiliar system, but at least it sounds detailed and gritty.

[Aroka]

You might be able to Google yourself up the free SRD Mongoose published for the previous edition of RQ they did (note, though, that the new edition has awesome fixes that turn combat from "fine but has problems" to "awesome and heals the blind"; overall they're the same game, though). Unfortunately, I don't think it's available on Mongoose's site anymore, and it'll be a while before the new one goes up (if it goes up at all).