Which Fantasy System Do You Like and Why?

[JamesDixon]

I'm curious to see what everyone's opinion is on fantasy RPG that's out there. For the sake of this discussion, D&D will refer only to D&D Basic-BECMI and AD&D. Anything beyond that is DANDINO or D&D In Name Only.

I really enjoy the simplicity and settings of AD&D 2E. I find that it's a logical extension of what was done in D&D Basic-BECMI while cleaning up AD&D 1E. Gary was a great idea man, but a lousy writer. Original D&D rewarded quick thinking and role playing.

If I want a bit more cinematic experience, I go with Fantasy Hero which is powered by Hero System from Hero Games. Instead of picking races and classes like you do in AD&D/D&D you choose your racial and class packages. You can freely mix the two. As long as your character has the points to spend they are free to be built as you like.

Endurance plays a big role in how you fight as it is the final attribute that shows if you have enough steam to get through an encounter. That's the great equalizer between casters and melee. Both require the use of Endurance for casting spells and swinging swords. Also, there isn't anything inherent to prohibit a wizard from wearing plate armor other than the GM's world. It does have built in mass combat support as well.

The downside to Fantasy Hero is that you need to homebrew your world or be prepared to spend a lot of time converting existing worlds to the system.

 

[KateMicucci]

The state of RPGs is not what I want it to be.

D&Dino has many problems that make me not want to play it at all. But roleplaying games, not just D&D but all of them, have evolved in the wrong direction. That is, they have become less and less "game" and more playing pretend, cooperative writing. Yes, there are rules for combat, but that isn't really the game anymore, is it? What is the point of having combat rules when the players are supposed to win just about every time? If the enemies win, the DM is more likely to wonder if he's done something wrong than to celebrate a job well done. D&D started with the assumption that the DM is just a referee, not an actual player. The DM is also the word of God in the gameworld. Both of these are problems for me.

I want to play tactical combat games where the DM is actually trying to win the game, and the rules are concrete enough that he can't just say "rocks fall everyone dies".

I enjoy a board game called Omega Protocol. It is a one vs many game where commandos are exploring an underground facility (dungeon) filled with aliens and traps. The overseer (DM) sets up the map according the rules for the mission and chooses in advance which rooms will have which traps, aliens, and which doors will be locked/stuck/trapped. The commandos have a set objective for each mission, such as find a map and then escape to the elevator, or escort a lab technician so that he can open the lab door. The overseer does his best to kill the commandos by tactically controlling the aliens. I am almost always the overseer and I have a lot more fun than I ever did as eternal DM. A mission usually takes 3-4 hours to finish unless the players are overthinking or distracted.

RPGs would be more fun if they had evolved in this direction, in my opinion. Start with a strong focus on making a good and fun combat system. TPK should be common, so publish short modules. Give the DM some different but balanced setup options so that the players don't know exactly what to expect. The DM would get a map or set of map options, and a selection of traps, obstacles and monsters that he could place where he wanted. Party rewards would be predetermined by the module or randomized. Characters could also get some extra powers or gear (and the DM would get a proportional bonus) but there is no need for 20 different character levels.

Maybe this is the kind of game people who are retvrning to OSR really want. Maybe something like this already exists.

 

[KateMicucci]

This atrocious Stacksexchange post is an example of what I mean that the game isn't about combat anymore. He's concerned and upset because the DM several times almost killed them, and wishes that he had made the combat easier so that the players didn't almost die. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/62911/how-can-i-suggest-the-dm-stop-trying-to-kill-us

 

[L'ennui]

I would usually go with GURPS for a fantasy game, but that's only because I'm very partial to GURPS as my system of choice, and it just happens to do fantasy quite well. You can have OSR-level simplicity or extremely complicated/powerful characters depending on which flavor of fantasy you're going for, and you can have very simple, fast-flowing combat or deeply intricate tactical encounters.

The only problems with GURPS are that 1) you need a clear idea of what kind of game you want to run (because the system, by default, will not handhold you into a predetermined type of game) and 2) you need to know the Basic Set well enough to know roughly what rules options exist, and you need to know (more or less) how to apply these rules to create and run your game.

Other than that, I would stick with OSR games because the early games had a clear gameplay structure that guides the GM through the quintessential "dungeon crawl" type of fantasy gaming. Not many other kinds of games offer such a rich, if intentionally narrow kind of gameplay loop.

 

[Gregz]

The more time passes, the more I appreciate Shadowrun. D&D is the gold standard, but if I need a refreshing change, Shadowrun is the go-to for me.

 

[King Crispy]

I realize it isn't strictly fantasy, but Gamma World deserves to be mentioned, the first edition of course.

Not because of anything that particularly stands out as being excellent in its actual rules nor its gameplay (like any first edition of RPG rules, it was quite clunky), but more for its overall feel, its incredible artwork, and its originality at the time.

For these reasons, Gamma World can evoke even more strong feelings in me than AD&D does.

 

[JamesDixon]

Leave it to Madame Soggy to post shit in a thread that is off-topic.

 

[Night Goat]

I can appreciate what earlier editions were going for but for me it's still 3.5.

 

[Fatty]

I play solo only so I am maybe not the target audience of this question. Base ruleset I use is Adventures Dark and Deep. It's not one of the more popular systems, it's basically AD&D 1.5E - a cleaned up 1E with some Unearthed Arcana and 2E thrown in. I like it because 1E is comfortable to me and I lack the free time and free headspace to pick up something newer and I have tons of 1E adventures to run with it. I can run other system's adventures with little difficulty since I only have myself to argue with.

I also throw in a bunch of things from other stuff I find on DTRPG or elsewhere, so it's become a bit of a Frankengame. I use mostly FlexAI for combat and a mix of Cortical NPC, Ken Wickham's stuff, and other random stuff for other AI. I end up killing myself alot so I have had to come up with some cheesy recovery rules, but it works for me.

 

[Risewild]

For me, the best system doesn't have character classes or character levels.
I like systems that let the players spend experience points to evolve/grow the characters. Instead of being restricted by class or level, the characters are restricted by experience points. This is usually a common point I use when making new RPG systems for fun.

For this reason, one of my favourite systems is the old World of Darkness (I have no idea about the new WoD, because I'm not interested in checking it out).

 

[SoupNazi]

I fell in love with Lamentations of the Flame Princess after nikolokolus essentially introduced me to it in his pbp game here on the Dex. The simplicity of B/X, with a Specialist (Thief) that makes sense, a more capable Fighter, and excellent, weird magic. Got interested thanks to that, then stayed for the modules.

 

[FritzedProcess]

"Fantasy" does encompass so many things that it's hard to pick one. If I were to pick one overall it would be AEG's L5R (1st or 4th edition). The system is so elegant, lethal, and easy to learn that it looks almost too good to be true.

If I had to pick an European-type fantasy setting, it'd have to be either Pathfinder 2 (solid maths on that one, it's what D&D should have been) or MERP/Rolemaster (again, skill rolls and combat are fast once you are used to it and you know your way around the tables, and if you kick the bucket, it's easy and fast to roll another character).

 

[Lagi]

i like warhammer 2nd ed (i play it 15 years ago so excuse my pink glasses). roll 2d10 under your stat (GM need to save you all the time because your stats are 30 if you lucky, .. and no, skill dont grant any extra %).
Combat was great with simple damage roll d6(or whatever weapon) + str.bonus - armor - tough.bonus. RNGGOD this feels so right. I still cannot fathom how dandino ArmorClass and HP bloat to accumulate damage are not rejected.
there were also this nice mechanic with reading 2xd10 in two different ways, f.ex. 4 and 6 was 46 for hit check and 64 for hit location. LOVE IT.
However even with 2ed of whm, rules feels very crude, loads of these regulations feels like never play tested and just put inside the book to make it looks big. I hear that Dark Heresy improve this system a lot (because whm 3ed is a different game).
===========
I like Alien RPG from FreeLeague. Roll a bunch of d6 and hope for single "6" to success. There is an excellent Stress mechanic that increase dice pool, but the stress dice could bring some misfortune. You can also reroll missed dice, but that is risky.
... yeah its not a fantasy system, but there are Forbidden Lands that use exact similar system, just no stress dice. But there are separate dice for skill and gear.

 

[nikolokolus]

I fell in love with Lamentations of the Flame Princess after nikolokolus essentially introduced me to it in his pbp game here on the Dex. The simplicity of B/X, with a Specialist (Thief) that makes sense, a more capable Fighter, and excellent, weird magic. Got interested thanks to that, then stayed for the modules.

And as life starts to return to some kind of more even keel maybe we can revisit that at some point? (But holy fuck am I tired after the last 18 months).

 

[SoupNazi]

I fell in love with Lamentations of the Flame Princess after nikolokolus essentially introduced me to it in his pbp game here on the Dex. The simplicity of B/X, with a Specialist (Thief) that makes sense, a more capable Fighter, and excellent, weird magic. Got interested thanks to that, then stayed for the modules.

And as life starts to return to some kind of more even keel maybe we can revisit that at some point? (But holy fuck am I tired after the last 18 months).

Mate, whatever the fuck you wanna do, I'll be clearing the time.

 

[Scruffy]

Communism, because I like LARPING Star Trek.

 

[Alex_Steel]

The state of RPGs is not what I want it to be.

I think you are confused. RPGs have been about stories and role playing since the inception of AD&D (in fact even earlier, but lets just stick to RPGs as most people know them). Video games couldn't (and still can't completely) imitate it because of technical limitations, but P&P was always about stories and role playing (among other things). It's mentioned explicitly in the AD&D book.

From that post, I get the feeling you just don't like RPGs. I am not judging btw, just stating what I get from your text. What you seem to like are squad based combat games, which are great and a genre of their own. But they are not RPGs. Just because most RPGs don't have a focus on squad based combat, doesn't make them bad by itself. Rather, your expectation of what constitutes an RPG sounds wrong.

 

[gurugeorge]

That is, they have become less and less "game" and more playing pretend, cooperative writing. Y

I wonder if that's an artifact of there being CRPGs. Perhaps the tabletop experience is more LARP-ey because computers do the actual combat part so much better, so the two audiences have drifted apart, whereas before they were forced to take a bit of the other thing to get the bit they enjoyed.

 

[KateMicucci]

The state of RPGs is not what I want it to be.

I think you are confused. RPGs have been about stories and role playing since the inception of AD&D (in fact even earlier, but lets just stick to RPGs as most people know them). Video games couldn't (and still can't completely) imitate it because of technical limitations, but P&P was always about stories and role playing (among other things). It's mentioned explicitly in the AD&D book.

From that post, I get the feeling you just don't like RPGs. I am not judging btw, just stating what I get from your text. What you seem to like are squad based combat games, which are great and a genre of their own. But they are not RPGs. Just because most RPGs don't have a focus on squad based combat, doesn't make them bad by itself. Rather, your expectation of what constitutes an RPG sounds wrong.

Well, if "most RPGs don't have a focus on squad based combat", then that's my point. If we're talking any edition of D&D, most of the rules are combat-related and the rules for anything else are pretty sparse. Why have all those rules if the combat is ultimately pointless because the PCs are always supposed to win? Or if the DM can decide that the PCs are supposed to lose for plot reasons and make a fight unwinnable?

I'm not saying RPGs shouldn't have a story. Any game except for very abstract ones have a story. Every squad based tactics game I'm aware of has a story. Story is not the issue. The issue is that a very complex set of combat and exploration rules is made moot whenever the DM feels like it (or the players demand it) in service to a creative writing exercise.

There are systems, eg Fate and Apocalypse World, that lean heavily into being a tool for those creative writing exercises. For the purpose of being creative writing games, they are largely improvements over their predecessors. On the other hand, there hasn't been as much progress in making RPGs that try to be good tactical dungeon crawlers. Yeah, there are video games. What I'm wanting though is a one-vs-many game and I don't think there are any of those.

 

[KateMicucci]

That is, they have become less and less "game" and more playing pretend, cooperative writing. Y

I wonder if that's an artifact of there being CRPGs. Perhaps the tabletop experience is more LARP-ey because computers do the actual combat part so much better, so the two audiences have drifted apart, whereas before they were forced to take a bit of the other thing to get the bit they enjoyed.

Probably. I don't think a TTRPG needs to have inferior combat to a CRPG though. The CRPG can crunch numbers faster, but the computer can't match the fun of competing against a human mind, or working together with human teammates.

 

[gurugeorge]

That is, they have become less and less "game" and more playing pretend, cooperative writing. Y

I wonder if that's an artifact of there being CRPGs. Perhaps the tabletop experience is more LARP-ey because computers do the actual combat part so much better, so the two audiences have drifted apart, whereas before they were forced to take a bit of the other thing to get the bit they enjoyed.

Probably. I don't think a TTRPG needs to have inferior combat to a CRPG though. The CRPG can crunch numbers faster, but the computer can't match the fun of competing against a human mind, or working together with human teammates.

Which brings me back to one of my hobby horses: the best fun I ever had with a computer game was when playing in a GM-led NWN2 persistent world adventure.

In that context, it all comes together - you have the number crunching and the cool visuals from the computer, the "competing against a human mind" from the adventure being led by a GM (who can adjust the world to your actions on the fly, just as in a tabletop context), and the "working together with human teammates" from the fact that you can discuss things with each other as a team, just as you would in the tabletop context. And if you're really hardcore about it, you can even roleplay it (keeping important OOC tactical communication separately bracketed), which is even another high-octane level of excitement and discipline on top of all that, and even have it all PvP as well, on top of that.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I fell in love with Lamentations of the Flame Princess after nikolokolus essentially introduced me to it in his pbp game here on the Dex. The simplicity of B/X, with a Specialist (Thief) that makes sense, a more capable Fighter, and excellent, weird magic. Got interested thanks to that, then stayed for the modules.

And as life starts to return to some kind of more even keel maybe we can revisit that at some point? (But holy fuck am I tired after the last 18 months).

Mate, whatever the fuck you wanna do, I'll be clearing the time.

Same.

As for the thread, I'm a simple minded dude. You put barbarians in it, I'll play it.

 

[Risewild]

I think you are confused. RPGs have been about stories and role playing since the inception of AD&D (in fact even earlier, but lets just stick to RPGs as most people know them).

And yet, the first RPGs were all Hack & Slash games. The first D&D rules were altered war miniature rules, the character sheets didn't have any skills or attributes related to roleplaying or social interaction at all, even Charisma was only used for rules on how many henchmen that character could have at the same time. The campaigns and modules were all about killing stuff and working out puzzles to get the treasure at the end, etc.

Only after 20 years of the creation of D&D (and RPGs) did roleplaying games start to have rules about actual roleplaying and proper world-building, and campaigns and modules followed the same trend. Some old players back then even thought that would be the death of the genre (or at least it would stop being as fun). The Hack & Slash days were (back then) considered the Golden Days of AD&D.

Excerpts from Dragon Magazine #146, June 1989:

Another excerpt:

 

[JamesDixon]

If we're talking any edition of D&D, most of the rules are combat-related and the rules for anything else are pretty sparse.

What the fuck are you going on about? In AD&D 2E combat takes up one chapter in the DMG and PHB. The page count in the PHB is 23 out of 311 while in the DMG it's 37 out of 248. That works out to be 7% of the PHB total pages and 14% of the DMG. That's just the combat chapter by the way.

 

[Alex_Steel]

Well, if "most RPGs don't have a focus on squad based combat", then that's my point. If we're talking any edition of D&D, most of the rules are combat-related and the rules for anything else are pretty sparse. Why have all those rules if the combat is ultimately pointless because the PCs are always supposed to win? Or if the DM can decide that the PCs are supposed to lose for plot reasons and make a fight unwinnable?

I'm not saying RPGs shouldn't have a story. Any game except for very abstract ones have a story. Every squad based tactics game I'm aware of has a story. Story is not the issue. The issue is that a very complex set of combat and exploration rules is made moot whenever the DM feels like it (or the players demand it) in service to a creative writing exercise.

There are systems, eg Fate and Apocalypse World, that lean heavily into being a tool for those creative writing exercises. For the purpose of being creative writing games, they are largely improvements over their predecessors. On the other hand, there hasn't been as much progress in making RPGs that try to be good tactical dungeon crawlers. Yeah, there are video games. What I'm wanting though is a one-vs-many game and I don't think there are any of those.

Ok, now I get a little better what you are saying. But still, the DM having such "powers" has been there since the inception of AD&D, it is literally stated in the books. I still think the issue here is that you don't like RPGs. The reason D&D has so many combat rules is, as Risewild mentioned, precisely because D&D was in the beginning a wargame. But that doesn't mean RPGs are wargames, rather some RPGs have rules that could be used for a wargame-like campaign.

And yet, the first RPGs were all Hack & Slash games. The first D&D rules were altered war miniature rules, the character sheets didn't have any skills or attributes related to roleplaying or social interaction at all, even Charisma was only used for rules on how many henchmen that character could have at the same time. The campaigns and modules were all about killing stuff and working out puzzles to get the treasure at the end, etc.

I will have to inform you that the first RPGs were not Hack & Slash games. The first modern RPGs evolved from such games. In fact, I would say that the first D&D wasn't even an RPG, and that term does not exist in the book. But it was on the edge of something groundbreaking. Like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin and some other bands were for heavy metal. Not 100% there, but you can clearly see the roots.