Have the setting, need a system
FrozenViking:
Greetings from the cold North,
I need some advice and hoped someone here could share their wisdom. I've not been RPGing for a few years and have lost track of what's new and potentially awesome. I'm looking to start a campaign using the Al-Qadim setting (1001 nights), but with a darker feel. It will definitely be a high fantasy game with a focus on characters and story development, where I want some realism, without getting bogged down in too many tables and charts. Since it will be a high fantasy campaign, the magic system needs to be solid and easy to grasp, so that we don't get too bogged down in details (I'm posting here, because a friend of mine suggested Sorcerer). At the same time, I want normal combat to have a real feel, so that players don't feel invulnerable, but again, it should be a quick system, so that a simple fight doesn't take all evening. It also wouldn't hurt if the system had good rules for mass combat.
Am I asking for too much?
The question is, which system to use?
I don't care if the systems recommended are old or new, as long as they would fit the bill.
Thanks for your help!
- The Frozen Viking
Currently enjoying a thaw, before winter sets in again
ADGBoss:
Quote
where I want some realism, without getting bogged down in too many tables and charts
Just when I plan on recommending Rolemaster, someone always complains about too many charts...
Sorcerer is a great system and there is a supplement, Sorcerer & Sword that helps with fantasy settings too.
Part of the problem is realism, its one of those words that is so hard to pin down. Realistic combat is something you have to experience. Trust me when I say you cannot simulate someone trying to kill you and everything that goes with it. Realism is also a matter of perspective. A friend of mine and I used to argue all the time (we still would but we agree to disagree on this subject) about which was more realistic: Anime style animation or Disney style animation. Many people used to think that denying dex bonuses in plate armor... until many of us saw a man in plate armor doing cartwheels.
So if you could define what you mean by Realism. How do YOU define Realism and then that would make it easier to recommend something.
FrozenViking:
Quote from: ADGBoss on July 21, 2011, 07:04:55 AM
Just when I plan on recommending Rolemaster, someone always complains about too many charts...
I've looked at Rolemaster once and concluded that it was not for me ;-)
Quote from: ADGBoss on July 21, 2011, 07:04:55 AM
Realistic combat is something you have to experience. Trust me when I say you cannot simulate someone trying to kill you and everything that goes with it. Realism is also a matter of perspective [...] Many people used to think that denying dex bonuses in plate armor... until many of us saw a man in plate armor doing cartwheels.
I hear you and agree ... and for the record: I was not one of the GM's denying dex bonuses!
Quote from: ADGBoss on July 21, 2011, 07:04:55 AM
So if you could define what you mean by Realism. How do YOU define Realism and then that would make it easier to recommend something.
How do I define realism? ... I'm not a fan of the typical D&D hit point system, where as your character gets more XP, he gets more hit points. After a few levels, when a character has a ton of hp's a guy wielding a dagger is simply no threat. I do see the link between experience and knowing how to avoid getting hit, which could justify the HP system, but I don't like it ... I want the players to know that combat can have serious consequences if they're not reflected upon what they're doing. I don't necessarily put an equal sign between realistic and deadly, because while it might be true in real life, I want to start a high fantasy campaign and I don't want the characters to drop like flies. I don't want the PC's to have to shun combat, because their scared to death of loosing their characters, but I want them to have a healthy respect for it. The Riddle of Steel had a high level of realism, but combat got bogged down, because the level of detail was too high (for me at least).
Right now I have Sorcerer and Burning Wheel short listed as favorites, but I'm still undecided.
ADGBoss:
Normally my knee-jerk reaction to more realistic combat for fantasy is Basic Role Playing from Chaosium. BRP is/was the basis for a lot of games of theirs including the original (3?) versions of Runequest. BRP gives you hit locations and fatigue and you can now customize it. Its old school, not exactly "Indie" but its good and IMHO has always been a bit underrated as a system.
Runequest Slayers, which is now Runeslayers... I know Ron was high on it years ago... but I do not know if it has much of a magic system.
But I think your two choices, Sorcerer (and I def recommend Sorcerer & Sword too) and Burning Wheel are good ones.
Callan S.:
Quote
I want the players to know that combat can have serious consequences if they're not reflected upon what they're doing. I don't necessarily put an equal sign between realistic and deadly, because while it might be true in real life, I want to start a high fantasy campaign and I don't want the characters to drop like flies. I don't want the PC's to have to shun combat, because their scared to death of loosing their characters, but I want them to have a healthy respect for it.
I don't think this is possible, really.
Either, statistically, you can't die in the combat (and it's a matter of how many resources you lose in order to win), or you can actually die.
I think weve had decades of TV, books and movies showing heroes going through 'life threatening danger' over and over and they have taught us some bullshit thinking. Because if you even have a one in a thousand chance of dying in a fight, once you've done about a thousand fights, you will die. And you know, one in a thousand isn't as risky as they portray it in movies, books and shows. Human brains just aren't very good at statistics - we see what looks like a 20% chance of dying in a book or movie - then that happens again five more times - then five more. And each time maybe we rationalise it as his skills were that good - but if they were, then it turns out it wasn't a 20% chance of dying then, it was less (or zero) due to high skills.
Personally I've switched my design method to no risk of life, but having a big risk of a high resource loss as the scary thing to look out for in combat. Or your risking innocent NPC lives instead of your own.
Other methods might be that the GM (as directed by some rules) secretly grants the PC's extra HP, writing down the amounts, before any battle. This way when the PC hits zero HP, actually he's still up by the GM's call. But the player never knows if he has extra HP or not. This lends some fear of the unknown, as they don't know if they have built up their secret HP supply yet (or whatever health method you use if not HP).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page