Quote from: Windjammer;445637Actually, historically the relation goes the other way round. One of the more interesting (early) reviews of the 3.0 PHB on Amazon suspects the class progression and customization system in 3E to have been designed by someone rather familiar with Earthdawn.

While D&D 4E's design goals and the history of its designers is well documented, the creative roots for 3.0 are far less well documented... I get it, everyone thinks Tweet and Cook were creative geniuses, but I'd really appreciate one day to read a simple straight story of where they got their ideas from.

They mainly got the vast majority of their ideas from older editions of D&D.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Glazer;445983I'd put in a vote for Lords of Creation, and also Mercenaries, Spies & Private Eyes.

LoC was designed by Tom Moldvay of basic D&D fame, and is a joyous, over the top, slightly crazy game, backed up by a great series of equally crazy and OTT Moldvay modules. Old school, in a fantastic way.

Lords of Creation is pure awesome. Just so much cool stuff packed in the core books. Time-travelling, lazer-wielding Greek heroes fight Yetis to uncover the secret of the Holy Grail? Why the fuck not?

Quote from: Glazer;445983I'd put in a vote for Lords of Creation, and also Mercenaries, Spies & Private Eyes.

LoC was designed by Tom Moldvay of basic D&D fame, and is a joyous, over the top, slightly crazy game, backed up by a great series of equally crazy and OTT Moldvay modules. Old school, in a fantastic way.

MSPE was designed by Michael Stackpole, and is rather more serious in tone and content than LoC, but is none the less a brilliantly written book with lots of extremely useful information on running games in the genres it covers.

Both are games I'm pleased to have in my collection, and would never part with.

Now, these two I have actually seen under-rated.

When I bought MSPE, the very guy who took my money in the shop -- funny how people supposedly selling RPGs so often behave like this! -- told me that I was bound to be disappointed. Basically, he was under-rating it on the basis of a prior (and only from hearsay) under-rating of T&T.

Not only did I actually have some experience with T&T, but I had actually looked through the MSPE book and liked what I saw. In the long run, I did not like it as much as Chaosium's game system, or TSR's Gangbusters, but it was up there with TSR's Top Secret, Hero Games's Espionage, and other solid entries in the field.

Lords of Creation, from Avalon Hill, had a problem shared with such other offerings as Pacesetter's Chill and Time Master, and Chaosium's Worlds of Wonder. TSR's Star Frontiers and Marvel Super Heroes suffered from it a bit less because of brand loyalists who wouldn't even look at non-TSR offerings such as Traveller and Champions.

These games were simply not self-consciously 'serious' enough for the opinion leaders. They were too simple, too unconcerned alike with 'realism' and 'literary' posturing, too brightly colored and gleefully adventurous, too concerned with getting down to actual play and too little with providing reading material for intellectualizing about RPGs.

Dragonlance, Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer showed the way the wind was blowing. Cyberpunk and Vampire, Warhammer FRP and Twilight: 2000 were on the way.

So, games such as Lords of Creation often got under-rated by getting dismissed out of hand. "Basic" D&D had a hard time with the same segment of gamers, even as the Companion set and beyond had quite meaty content for 'serious' campaigns.

When Legendary Lives came out at the end of the decade, it got a good review in White Wolf Magazine, which praised the core system. The naive style, though, pretty well ensured that it would not get much of an audience. Darker follow up Lost Souls fared considerably better, I think.

Maelstrom is a great game. I own it and the Companion, and I frequently recommend it. Thing is it is not a fantasy. It's very much an historical RPG, set in a very specific place and time - Tudor England.

-clash

Quote from: Phillip;445638Dragonquest might be a little more obscure -- hence really not so much under-rated as simply not rated at all -- than its design warrants. However, I think it got a pretty good push back in the day and expecting it to find much more popularity today is probably unrealistic.

Obviously, I disagree. I think DQ was bought up and killed by a rival before it had a chance to develop fully. I bought it, ran it, and played it way back when, and I still own both the 1e box set and the 2e softcover. In other words, the pre-TSR editions, and while it does have a few areas that need further development and a less text book like organization, I wouldn't hesitate to play or run it today as is. I feel that if it been given a chance to enjoy a longer print run and further growth it would have been much more popular. Folks who have been exposed to it often seem unable to get past the way it's organized, in my experience. Of course, I could be wrong, but then I suppose we'll never know either way.

Quote from: Akrasia;445923I agree that DragonQuest was (is) underrated.  (I still have my copy, and read the section on demons occasionally for inspiration.)

The demonology is about on par with that in C&S and Fantasy Wargaming, as I recall. It was noted at the time, along with the attention paid to game balance, the magic system (which also a bit evoked C&S), character generation and advancement, some notably folkloric monster descriptions, and of course the highly detailed combat system.

Just how has it been "under rated"? It seems to me that it offered things that had been offered before, and have been offered since, that just don't appeal as much to the general run of RPG players as they do to some of us.

It also lacked a certain something, an atmospheric trace element perhaps, that inspired people when they started playing (or even generating characters for) other, more popular sword and sorcery games.

I know the SPI "numbered case system" and other aspects of presentation impress many people as 'dry' relative to, for instance, Advanced D&D or Palladium Fantasy. The need to flip back and forth among sections and track down tables can also be a bit off-putting, although the amount may be exaggerated by simple lack of familiarity.

Someone for whom DQ was the first RPG might eventually find it quite comfy and AD&D a bother. An expert GM could help new players "learn the ropes" the same way an expert DM would teach AD&D. It would more often be a case, though, of people already acquainted with some other game trying to sort out DQ for the first -- and often the last -- time.

The relatively piddling bonuses for skill factors and the like leave many people dissatisfied. After generating novice characters and taking them through the sample adventure, such people feel that the game is too much work for too little payoff.

These responses are not to my mind "under rating". They are fairly rating the game, albeit on the basis of a hierarchy of values that may be different from mine. The careful design that went into the game is evident, but it is to the end of delivering things that don't contribute enough to many people's fun.

QuoteDid anyone else ever play a FRPG called Thieves' Guild (by Gamelords)?  It essentially is an AD&D variant, but I liked some of the ideas it offered for running a 'thieves only' fantasy campaign.  I actually ran a sporadic campaign in the distant past (in the city 'Haven'), and it was surprisingly fun.

I was not surprised that Gamelords' scenarios were fun, as we got into them in the first place on the basis of that expectation. By the end of the line, I think we had used about as much of the game system as had been published. Details have not proven memorable for me, I am afraid.

Quote from: SigmundI think DQ was bought up and killed by a rival before it had a chance to develop fully.

So, just what ratings are 'under', and where are you finding them?

TSR re-published DQ after SPI collapsed, along with at least one scenario/ supplement combo (with AD&D stats included in addition) by Paul Jaquays.

I have heard that the TSR edition cut out some material, but all my experience is with the earlier rules sets. I doubt that the revision mattered much to people who were not already fans of the game.

It appears to me that it got an extra chance, not that TSR "under rated" it (which seems to be the implication). The Dragon Magazine review, IIRC, rated the SPI release quite highly.

Gary Gygax called M.A.R. Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne "the most beautifully done fantasy game ever created." The designer of TSR's Marvel Super Heroes lavished praise on Mayfair's DC Heroes. West End's Torg also won critical accolades, I think. The qualities of a design can be highly appreciated in the quarters that give prominent ratings, yet not strike as strong a buying chord in the mass market as fans would hope.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone put down Tekumel. People widely acknowledge the brilliance of the creation, routinely putting it on par with Tolkien's Middle Earth. They just are not keen on playing in it!

Ditto Aces & Eights. It is today somewhat a 'deluxe' production, as EPT was back in the day, and a tour de force of game design. It seems that everyone who takes a look at it comes away impressed. A Western, though, even an alternate-historical one, just does not have the popularity of games involving the likes of Eldar Ghost Warriors and Deva Swordmages.

Quote from: Haffrung;446020Lords of Creation is pure awesome. Just so much cool stuff packed in the core books. Time-travelling, lazer-wielding Greek heroes fight Yetis to uncover the secret of the Holy Grail? Why the fuck not?

Really? I'm...shocked at the Lords of Creation love. Mind you, I'm nostalgic for it a bit - I bought part of someone's collection from this very site so mine would be complete - but despite that and having actually played it, it's nothing I yearn for. I, personally, also wouldn't say it was underrated.

Seanchai

Hmm, haven't seen Lords of Creation, unfortunately.

Quote from: Phillip;446030When Legendary Lives came out at the end of the decade, it got a good review in White Wolf Magazine, which praised the core system. The naive style, though, pretty well ensured that it would not get much of an audience. Darker follow up Lost Souls fared considerably better, I think.

BTW...People might be interested to find this (and Lost Souls) have both now been released online for free by the original authors, or can be purchased as print products.

http://www.hauntedattic.org/legendarylives.html


Also...is there going to be a companion thread for "Overrated Fantasy RPGs"? Or just plain awful fantasy RPGs?

Quote from: Seanchai;446082Really? I'm...shocked at the Lords of Creation love. Mind you, I'm nostalgic for it a bit - I bought part of someone's collection from this very site so mine would be complete - but despite that and having actually played it, it's nothing I yearn for. I, personally, also wouldn't say it was underrated.

Seanchai

The only underrating I have in mind is that of people who would not even give it a chance, on the basis of a superficial impression that had very little to do with how much fun one might have with the rules or scenarios.

"Oh, look at that cover art, it must be just for kiddies," is not much of a fair assessment.

It would likewise be overrating to call some just passable game the coming of glory just because it had museum-worthy illustrations and pretentious blather surrounding the actual nuts and bolts.

Quote from: David Johansen;445544High Fantasy to this day holds the title for ugliest cover ever seen on an rpg.  The art inside was poor but not as spectacularly bad as the cover.  Anyhow, a simple percentile game with classes and levels but many innovative ideas.  Magic spells scaled, you needed your spell book to cast them but could master them to over come this.  Each class had down time activities and expenses that got them special stuff like that.  It was also the first game I saw where Alchemists could make firearms.

High Fantasy's rules were fairly lame, but the solo adventures were awesome.  I still have a couple of the books just for those.  The solo adventure that comes with the rulebook is definitely the best one I've ever played - by far.  It also has this really cool and different asian/indian/mayan/idontknow flavor to it that I've never seen in anything else.

Quote from: Phillip;446067So, just what ratings are 'under', and where are you finding them?

TSR re-published DQ after SPI collapsed, along with at least one scenario/ supplement combo (with AD&D stats included in addition) by Paul Jaquays.

I have heard that the TSR edition cut out some material, but all my experience is with the earlier rules sets. I doubt that the revision mattered much to people who were not already fans of the game.

It appears to me that it got an extra chance, not that TSR "under rated" it (which seems to be the implication). The Dragon Magazine review, IIRC, rated the SPI release quite highly.

Gary Gygax called M.A.R. Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne "the most beautifully done fantasy game ever created." The designer of TSR's Marvel Super Heroes lavished praise on Mayfair's DC Heroes. West End's Torg also won critical accolades, I think. The qualities of a design can be highly appreciated in the quarters that give prominent ratings, yet not strike as strong a buying chord in the mass market as fans would hope.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone put down Tekumel. People widely acknowledge the brilliance of the creation, routinely putting it on par with Tolkien's Middle Earth. They just are not keen on playing in it!

Ditto Aces & Eights. It is today somewhat a 'deluxe' production, as EPT was back in the day, and a tour de force of game design. It seems that everyone who takes a look at it comes away impressed. A Western, though, even an alternate-historical one, just does not have the popularity of games involving the likes of Eldar Ghost Warriors and Deva Swordmages.

I have never had a problem playing or running the game, yet I often encounter criticisims such as yours, so where I get the "under-rating" should be obvious. I found the game to be intuitive and no more intrusive than any other RPG to use in play. At the time I found the chargen better suited to building and playing the kinds of characters I was interested in than any other FRPG with which I was familiar. I liked the schools of magic and the packaging of skills into professions. I liked the use of hexes in combat (probably because at the time I also used to play Melee and Wizard with my brother and neighbors practically every week-end).

The TSR edition most notably dropped the College of Greater Summoning, arguably the most flavorful of the colleges (I think that actually was due to the satanic bullshit being flung about in that era), and pretty much didn't bother to do much advertising or support for the game (and really, why would they when they already had a successful FRPG). To be honest, I believe DQ did, way back when, what 4e D&D has been attempting to do, and IMO DQ did it better, with more support for giving characters things to do "off the grid" as well.

It's not the most underrated FRPG, but I still stand by it being a underrated FRPG by many folks who think other games did what DQ did "better" (an assessment with which I disagree), or couldn't get past the organization.

Honestly, I've never really liked Tekumel. Just doesn't trip my trigger, I prefer more vanilla fantasy I suppose. I actually like when fantasy cultures mimic real-world ones, it gives me a frame of reference for them. The races of Tekumel seem to me to be different just for difference's sake. I mean Nyagga? Really? I find it hard to reconcile even mentioning Tekumel and Middle Earth in the same paragraph. Give me Harn for beautifully detailed world any day.

Quote from: Phillip;446112The only underrating I have in mind is that of people who would not even give it a chance, on the basis of a superficial impression that had very little to do with how much fun one might have with the rules or scenarios.

"...I'm nostalgic for it a bit - I bought part of someone's collection from this very site so mine would be complete...having actually played it..."

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;446182"...I'm nostalgic for it a bit - I bought part of someone's collection from this very site so mine would be complete...having actually played it..."

Seanchai

Try not reading yourself between the lines in an intentionally absurd way.

Quote from: SigmundI have never had a problem playing or running the game, yet I often encounter criticisims such as yours, so where I get the "under-rating" should be obvious.

Hmm. Maybe in...

Quote from: Sigmund...while it does have a few areas that need further development and a less text book like organization, I wouldn't hesitate to play or run it today as is....  Folks who have been exposed to it often seem unable to get past the way it's organized, in my experience.