Which Fantasy System Do You Like and Why?

[KateMicucci]

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.

The rules for character creation, stats, equipment, magic, movement, etc. are all necessary for the combat to function. Even in a game like Axis and Allies, the chapter on "combat" is only 3 pages in a 32 page rulebook.

Here's what I'm saying though: what if we just had one player control all the Axis? Ok, and now what if that one player can unilaterally change the rules of the game whenever he wants? Fudge die rolls, add or take away pieces, or even turn the game into an alternate history story with roleplaying. The game is no longer competitive at that point. A lot of people could have fun with Axis and Allies as an alternate history roleplaying game, sure, but it's still a completely different thing.

 

[JamesDixon]

The rules for character creation, stats, equipment, magic, movement, etc. are all necessary for the combat to function. Even in a game like Axis and Allies, the chapter on "combat" is only 3 pages in a 32 page rulebook.

Except that you're wrong as combat is only one means of resolving things. Are you implying that using Non-Weapon Proficiencies is part of combat? Are you going to roll initiative against a tree branch to make a bow? What about arrows?

For all the non-combat stuff it clocks in at 24-ish pages in the PHB and 130 pages in the DMG. Are you sure you want to stick with your position when the rulebooks says the opposite of your claims? There is more dedicated to story etc... in AD&D then there is to combat. Never mind the thousands of pages detailing all the worlds ranging from campaign box sets to sourcebooks. Yet, you claim that D&D/AD&D is centered around combat. Strange that you get more experience in overcoming a group of enemies using your wits than actually killing them. That's if the DM was nice enough to make it balanced to your group.

Also Axis and Allies is a board game and you are making an invalid comparison with it to AD&D/D&D. You just lost the argument.

 

[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.

By the way, this is what I'm replying to your claim. Do you have the AD&D 2E rules handy? I do both in hard copy and pdf.

 

[KateMicucci]

Except that you're wrong as combat is only one means of resolving things. Are you implying that using Non-Weapon Proficiencies is part of combat? Are you going to roll initiative against a tree branch to make a bow? What about arrows?

For all the non-combat stuff it clocks in at 24-ish pages in the PHB and 130 pages in the DMG. Are you sure you want to stick with your position when the rulebooks says the opposite of your claims? There is more dedicated to story etc... in AD&D then there is to combat. Never mind the thousands of pages detailing all the worlds ranging from campaign box sets to sourcebooks. Yet, you claim that D&D/AD&D is centered around combat. Strange that you get more experience in overcoming a group of enemies using your wits than actually killing them. That's if the DM was nice enough to make it balanced to your group.

Also Axis and Allies is a board game and you are making an invalid comparison with it to AD&D/D&D. You just lost the argument.

Fine. I don't want to debate dnd rulebooks. That is orthagonal to my point, which is that these hundreds of pages of rules are for nothing because the DM can ignore or overide them. Whether it's combat, crafting, lockpicking, stealth or persuassion rules doesn't matter. When one player can alter the gamestate unilaterally it's not a competitive game but a creative writing game.

Only a little of my tabletop experience is with D&D, because I don't like it. I've mostly played Warhammer rpgs, Eclipse Phase, Cyberpunk 2022, Fate, Apocalypse World, and Conspiracy X, usually as GM. They all leaned heavily to the creative writing side. In the Conspiracy X game I'm pretty sure that the GM didn't even know the rules and just made everything up as he went. I can't know what every table is like, but my friends' stories of their games sound even more larpy. They'd talk about their wacky plans to capture the evil governor by faking their own deaths and then burning down his house or whatever. Another group of friends had to persuade a wizard who'd turned himself into a duck to let them use his library. Ok, sounds like they had a lot of fun, but I'll pass.

All I'm saying is that I want to play a competitive one-vs-many game with my bros about exploring, killing and looting shit.

 

[perfectslumbers]

Personally basic d&d is my favourite. I highly prize systems that are lighter so that the game keeps going compared to modern systems that tend to have 3 hour long combats. (5e and 4e are the worst for this, practically unplayable to me because of how long and tedious combat is past level 5.) The old school sword and sorcery flavour and aesthetics is also great, and much superior to modern californian soy fantasy. There are some OSR systems that make improvements on the rules of basic like LOTFP but they usually lack the same classic aesthetic and are made by weirdos who have gone insane from spending too much time on google+ Of course I haven't played every fantasy RPG (sure is hard to wrangle a group,) so there's probably some true gems out there that I'm missing. Not sure what my next RPG sojourn should be, I'd play OD&D but I hear it's extremely similar to basic.

 

[JamesDixon]

it's not a competitive game but a creative writing game.

That's because D&D/AD&D is not a competitive game. It's a cooperative game built on trust between the players and the DM. If you want adversarial combat you need to stick to wargames. Of which, AD&D had one called Battle System.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I have 87 tables explaining why Role master is the best.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

it's not a competitive game but a creative writing game.

That's because D&D/AD&D is not a competitive game. It's a cooperative game built on trust between the players and the DM. If you want adversarial combat you need to stick to wargames. Of which, AD&D had one called Battle System.

1. Chainmail Rules for Medieval Miniatures by Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren was published by Guidon Games in 1971, formed the basis for D&D's combat system, was referred to in the original D&D rules, and the 3rd edition was published by TSR in 1975.
2. Swords & Spells: Fantastic Miniatures Rules by Gary Gygax was published in 1976 for use with the original D&D rules, to handle large-scale battles while being more consistent with D&D than the older Chainmail rules
3. Battlesystem Fantasy Combat Supplement by Doug Niles was published in 1985 for use with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
4. Battlesystem Miniature Rules by Doug Niles was published in 1989 to update to AD&D 2nd edition, followed in 1991 by a Battlesystem Skirmishes rulebook for smaller-scale miniatures combat.

 

[JamesDixon]

it's not a competitive game but a creative writing game.

That's because D&D/AD&D is not a competitive game. It's a cooperative game built on trust between the players and the DM. If you want adversarial combat you need to stick to wargames. Of which, AD&D had one called Battle System.

1. Chainmail Rules for Medieval Miniatures by Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren was published by Guidon Games in 1971, formed the basis for D&D's combat system, was referred to in the original D&D rules, and the 3rd edition was published by TSR in 1975.
2. Swords & Spells: Fantastic Miniatures Rules by Gary Gygax was published in 1976 for use with the original D&D rules, to handle large-scale battles while being more consistent with D&D than the older Chainmail rules
3. Battlesystem Fantasy Combat Supplement by Doug Niles was published in 1985 for use with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
4. Battlesystem Miniature Rules by Doug Niles was published in 1989 to update to AD&D 2nd edition, followed in 1991 by a Battlesystem Skirmishes rulebook for smaller-scale miniatures combat.

Yes, that's because those are all wargames. I'm referring to the RPG version of D&D/AD&D. Hence why I said if you want adversarial combat you need a wargame. Thanks for the history bud.

 

[Risewild]

In fact, I would say that the first D&D wasn't even an RPG, and that term does not exist in the book.

That term doesn't exist in the book, but the term came from the book referring to how each character has their own role in the campaign.

The name "role-playing game" was not created because of the (other) "role playing" that's "pretend you're someone you're not" (as we associate it with these days), but about how the players are each playing a specific role in the campaign by using their characters.

I don't have access to the first edition set, since I moved to the other side of the world and couldn't bring any of my old books with me. But I think Volume 1 "Men and Magic" book, specifically refer to each character as having their own roles in the campaign at least a few times.

Role-playing sounds much better than Character-playing and so the name was born.

EDIT: I found the pdfs online and check them out. Here is what I meant before about the books mentioning "roles":

As we can see, they explicitly make a point that each character (including henchmen and intelligent swords) will have a role and how important that is. Role is pretty much a term in original D&D's rules.

 

[Alex_Steel]

In fact, I would say that the first D&D wasn't even an RPG, and that term does not exist in the book.

That term doesn't exist in the book, but the term came from the book referring to how each character has their own role in the campaign.

The name "role-playing game" was not created because of the (other) "role playing" that's "pretend you're someone you're not" (as we associate it with these days), but about how the players are each playing a specific role in the campaign by using their characters.

I don't have access to the first edition set, since I moved to the other side of the world and couldn't bring any of my old books with me. But I think Volume 1 "Men and Magic" book, specifically refer to each character as having their own roles in the campaign at least a few times.

Role-playing sounds much better than Character-playing and so the name was born.

You are wrong, the term roleplaying is in AD&D exactly the same, and it is no accident that they started using it after some important changes in the way they imagined their game. Here, an example:

AD&D 1st edition, page 7, 2nd paragraph under 'THE GAME':
"You act out the game as this character, ....as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment)... The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with!"

Also:
to act out (phrasal verb)

1. (idiomatic)To go through the process of a scene from a play, a charade or a pointless exercise.
   Despite already being aware, he will act out the pretence of a surprise.

That description is very different from the one in the first edition of D&D, with no mentions of acting out and roleplaying.

 

[Angriph]

Since you are running a game with WEG's Star Wars I thought I would mention...
My group hasn't played for a while but last time we did we used Mini Six (barebones version of Open D6) for several fantasy games and we had a lot of fun.
On the positives:
- Having played a few campaigns of Star Wars D6 we were all very familiar with the system
- The streamlining done the defense rolls made it lighter to run than standard D6
- It was fairly easy to adapt the rules to different settings like the Viking Age, the Fourth Age of Middle Earth, etc. with relevant perks and items
On the downside:
- Still don't know how to avoid making dodge a dump skill
- Balancing encounters is tricky