TheRPGSite

I think there's probably a ton more underrated Fantasy RPGs than Sci-Fi RPGs, just by virtue of the fact that there's so damn many fantasy RPGs that have been produced over the years.

So is there any obscure or REALLY obscure fantasy RPG that's maybe been dismissed as second-rate or even as a "fantasy heartbreaker" that you thought was just spectacular?

RPGPundit

Not really obscure, but I love The Fantasy Trip. Great combat system, and the vestigial skill system provides just the right amount of character differentiation while keeping things fast and fun. It's my current go-to for sword and sorcery, taking over from various iterations of BRP.

And by the way, word is that someone is working on a full retro-clone. :)

I guess it depends on what you mean by obscure. Talislanta is probably one of the more successful fantasy heartbreakers. And it's best-known for its wild and weird setting. Thing is, the OMNI system (as presented in 4th edition) is really straightforward, dramatic, and capable of running all sorts of games.

Although it's been mentioned recently, Promised Sands is an awesome game thatv has never gotten enough love.

Same goes for Children of the Sun, an gonzo-awesome Indiana Jones meets Lord of the Rings kind of great.  It deserved much more love.

Decipher's Lord of the Rings. It needed more editin but in many ways got the setting and needed probably another coat of polish and oversight to have been just right. Far better at the setting than MERP.

Tales of Gargenthir : http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3.html

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Silverlion;299935Decipher's Lord of the Rings. It needed more editin but in many ways got the setting and needed probably another coat of polish and oversight to have been just right. Far better at the setting than MERP.

This. I completely agree.

I'll second Talislanta, and god damn, I left THOSE books in Iowa as well. SHIT!

Talislanta.

Does Tunnels & Trolls, Castles & Crusades, or Swords & Wizardry count?

Dragonquest

I love T&T and Talislants. Which are awesome. They've survived for untold ages of gaming FOR a reason.

 I think they're undervalued by SOME people (D&D players) but have a stronger  following of the people outside of those whose tastes are satisfied via D&D.

Do they deserve recognition across the board? Yes.

I'll add a nod to the original Dragonquest, and  The Fantasy Trip as well.

I'd like to add Ars Magica to the wider "not appreciated enough in the entire hobby" list, as well.

Agone, definitely. The setting is so evocative, if somewhat depressing(well, the depression is one of the reasons it's so evocative). Life is a play, in a manner of speaking, and you're fighting a battle against incredible odds to keep from being strung up like a common puppet. *squee*

Earthdawn, too. I wouldn't call it obscure, but it certainly doesn't get as much love as it deserves. Why more people don't seem to understand just how infinitely-better-than-D&D it is is beyond me. It's a bit more rules-heavy than I'm used to, but there's an internal consistency that makes it just work.

Agreed on Agone. It's really good, evocative and underrated.

Quote from: Benoist;299987Agreed on Agone. It's really good, evocative and underrated.

Start a thread and tell me what's cool about Agone?

Quote from: RPGPundit;299910So is there any obscure or REALLY obscure fantasy RPG that's maybe been dismissed as second-rate or even as a "fantasy heartbreaker" that you thought was just spectacular?

Talislanta fits this criterion.

Quote from: Silverlion;299999Start a thread and tell me what's cool about Agone?

Sure! See this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14091). :)

Quote from: The_Shadow;299918And by the way, word is that someone is working on a full retro-clone [of the Fantasy Trip].

Check out Dark City Game's Legends of the Ancient World.

http://www.darkcitygames.com (http://www.darkcitygames.com)

The rules are free and only 6 pages long. They sell their adventures which are solo or GM moderated. Your choice.

I quite liked Runequest: Slayers, though it's impossible to find another human being who plays it.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;300047I quite liked Runequest: Slayers, though it's impossible to find another human being who plays it.

Hunh.  I stumbled on my copy of it just last week.  In fact, it's within a mild stretch of my arm right now.  Admittedly, I don't think I've even considered playing it before.

!i!

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;300047I quite liked Runequest: Slayers, though it's impossible to find another human being who plays it.

I tried to get a game going (had a GM lined up and two other players.) This was before bad things happened in my life which completely wrecked me for a while, so sadly I only played one test session and my elf fought with his spear...and his cool backstory was never plumbed.

FANTASIA was an interesting RPG that got no traction unfortunately.   It is Old School focussed on LotR-style Fantasy and it is a solid game with a few minor flaws.  

My Review
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12068.phtml

Fantasia Website - with free downloads
http://www.newdimensiongames.com/fantasia1.htm

ROGUE SWORDS OF THE EMPIRE is one of my favorite fantasy RPGs.  It was published in Space Gamer #2 in the early 1990s (the 4th reboot of the magazine?) and the company ran it heavily at the Los Angeles conventions.  Sadly, the company folded before they could really generate heat.

Quote from: Silverlion;299935Decipher's Lord of the Rings. It needed more editin but in many ways got the setting and needed probably another coat of polish and oversight to have been just right. Far better at the setting than MERP.

I'm curious what you thought was good about it.  As I mentioned in a previous thread on this, " Decipher's Star Trek and Lord of the Rings," (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=13158) I found it to be utterly broken.  I thought that the editing, layout, and illustration of the book were fine , though -- the problems were in the game design, IMO.  cf. my examples of shooting an orc with an arrow and slapping a Balrog with the flat of your sword from that thread.

Iron Gauntlets is a great FRPG that I still can't figure out why I can't play.

Arrowflight

(http://www.spiritgames.co.uk/image/rpg/2012.jpg)

I feel a lot of sympathy for it, I think it is a pretty solid game. Unfortunately, I have only read it, I have yet to play it.

Usagi Yojimbo. The Sanguine version

(http://www.warehouse23.com/img/200/SPL5001-200.jpg)

This one I have played :D . I have played and read so many RPGs, I thought I had become jaded. Until I read Usagi Yojimbo and thought "I have to run this!", and so I did. It has become one of my favorite RPGs ever. Unfortunately, it must not be very successful because there hasn't been any supplement for it yet (and I'm afraid there won't be), and you hardly see any discussion about it. Whatever, if loving it makes me wrong, I don't want to be right.

Quote from: Claudius;300201This one I have played :D . I have played and read so many RPGs, I thought I had become jaded. Until I read Usagi Yojimbo and thought "I have to run this!", and so I did. It has become one of my favorite RPGs ever. Unfortunately, it must not be very successful because there hasn't been any supplement for it yet (and I'm afraid there won't be), and you hardly see any discussion about it. Whatever, if loving it makes me wrong, I don't want to be right.

The system I heard was a simplified Jadeclaw? How easy is it to use?

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;300177Iron Gauntlets is a great FRPG that I still can't figure out why I can't play.

Dang, Doc, you beat me to the one I was going to mention.

I only have the .pdf of it (though I printed most of it out.) I think that's the reason I haven't run this puppy through its paces.

This:

(http://homepages.tesco.net/~parsonsp/assets/images/maelstrom.jpg)

Maelstrom from Puffin Books.

Arion Games acquired the license and has reprinted the original in pdf and added a Companion book which expands on and clears up the rules and setting.

A very underrated system and of course the herb guide was amazing.

Quote from: Silverlion;300212The system I heard was a simplified Jadeclaw? How easy is it to use?

I don't know Jadeclaw, only what I've read about it in reviews. According to what I read, it's a simplified version.

How easy is it to use? Let me tell you that I'm not a big fan of strange resolution systems, mainly because there's nothing more intuitive than an honest and simple roll over or roll under system, so I thought I would be put off by the UY system. But I wasn't, it's very intuitive. It works so, characteristics and skills are measured in dice (as in Savage Worlds), for example you can have a sword skill of 1d8 and a body charactersitic of 1d6. If you want to attack somebody with a sword, you roll 1d8 and 1d6 and you don't add them, just take the highest score (as in Silcore). One rule that always applies is that you never add anything to the dice, you roll and the highest is what you get. This makes it very intuitive in actual play. What if an action is easy? You get bonus dice, for example if you attack somebody who is sleeping, you roll 1d8, 1d6 and 1d12, and take the highest. What if the action is difficult? You get penalty dice. The difficulty can be expressed in a fixed target number, or in dice, and in order to succed you must roll higher than the opposition. A penalty die gives your opposition a bonus die. Simple, intuitive, and brilliant.

I heard that Jadeclaw uses a more complex system for bonuses and penalties, but I'm not sure how it works.

Quote from: vgunn;300320This:

(http://homepages.tesco.net/~parsonsp/assets/images/maelstrom.jpg)

Maelstrom from Puffin Books.

Arion Games acquired the license and has reprinted the original in pdf and added a Companion book which expands on and clears up the rules and setting.

A very underrated system and of course the herb guide was amazing.

YES!

Dammit, I want to run this again; and maybe at some point I will.

RPGPundit

Dragon Warriors.

I have a copy of Maelstrom working its way towards me as I type. I'm holding this thread responsible for its quality!

I keep hearing good things about the Secret of Zir'an (though I loathe apostrophes). Unfortunately it's OOP, and then some.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;300459I keep hearing good things about the Secret of Zir'an (though I loathe apostrophes). Unfortunately it's OOP, and then some.

I keep seeing a copy for cheap at my game store. I flip through it "Why didn't I pick this up?" then I get to the pages that are unreadable due to the art design. (Pale Text that the art actively obscures.) I then put it back on the shelf.

I'm lucky enough to have a copy that's entirely legible. It's sweeeeeet.

Another vote for T&T, The Fantasy Trip, and Talislanta!

Does "Stalking the Night Fantastic" count as fantasy?

I'm not sure if talislanta, now thinking of it, is really "underrated".  Under-supported, maybe. If WotC had kept it, it might have surpassed D&D as the game to play, as 3rd ed Tal was definitely a beginning point for D20.

Quote from: Pere Ubu;300681Another vote for T&T, The Fantasy Trip, and Talislanta!

Does "Stalking the Night Fantastic" count as fantasy?

I think its allegedly "Horror" originally but the tone was "Comedic Horror", not even as subtle as "Black Humor", now it might be "Supernatural Modern Fantasy."

Labels are often a mess...

It isn't Urban Fantasy (Because after all fighting Goshmog might be done in some farm land...)

Quote from: Silverlion;300465I flip through it "Why didn't I pick this up?" then I get to the pages that are unreadable due to the art design. (Pale Text that the art actively obscures.)

That's due to an unfortunate printing error rather than an intentional design, actually, and its severity varies from copy to copy. The one I purchased from a sale at the FLGS is quite readable, for instance.

I think one of them is undoubtedly "Beasts men & gods" fantasy RPG.

So please join the online petition i put on my blog for this forgotten gem:

http://addsecondaedizione.blogspot.com/2011/03/petition-for-lost-fantasy-rpg.html (http://addsecondaedizione.blogspot.com/2011/03/petition-for-lost-fantasy-rpg.html)

From the days of yore, I'd have to say Chivalry & Sorcery didn't get good treatment. It wasn't a math heavy game... Meaning not alot of repetative math, It was definitely a math complex game though. Once you got through character creation though it improved considerably.

It brought Jousting to the fantasy realm, something no one was ever able to really do in D&D.

There were spell design mechanics so you could create new spells.

And it introduced characters with detailed backgrounds amd family histories, yet another thing that was lacking in D&D until much later.

Twin Crowns d20 remains one of my favorite Naval RPG games from the modern era.

Claudius - That does sound a lot like Jadeclaw/Ironclaw, a system for which I have a lot of love, so let's go ahead and add them to this thread as well (Jadeclaw especially).  It got some things very wrong, but character creation, task resolution, martial combat, and progression for martial characters were about as good as anything I can think of, with bonus points for audacious originality.

Well I always trot out Swordbearer, Wizard's Realm, and High Fantasy on these threads.

Swordbearer was a three stat percentile game that had an innovative magic system based on capturing elemental and spirit nodes in reflections of their true form and binding spells to them, it also introduced using wealth levels instead of money and had actions declared in order of intelligence and played out in order of agility, not super workable in practice, but a great notion.

Wizard's Realm was a nice little fantasy game with very flexible character creation.  It was the first place I ever saw the "your class is what you call what your character does" concept.  The art was somewhere between Disney and Charles Vess and it had all these secret messages in runes written in the margins.

High 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.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;299978Earthdawn, too. I wouldn't call it obscure, but it certainly doesn't get as much love as it deserves. Why more people don't seem to understand just how infinitely-better-than-D&D it is is beyond me. It's a bit more rules-heavy than I'm used to, but there's an internal consistency that makes it just work.

I've played a lot of ED (1e), and A lot of (TSR) D&D and I have to disagree- to a point, anyway. Everything that ED "fixes" in D&D can be dealt with in a paragraph or two of house rules  (or by just ignoring some shit) without marrying the mechanics to any sort of setting in the way ED is married to Barsaive.  

I guess if you like having a setting hardwired into the rules, maybe ED does 'fix' D&D, but, for me, more than anything else, that was the deal breaker.

Beyond that, after not touching D&D for well over a decade I relearned the system in minutes; I tried to do the same with ED and decided it was not worth the trouble. Thread magic: wtf?  Opening the core book with fiction. For the love of God, stop! Also, first edition ED had the worst monster book I have ever fucking seen.

Quote from: SuperSooga;300448I have a copy of Maelstrom working its way towards me as I type. I'm holding this thread responsible for its quality!

Ditto! That cover just sold me and I'm a sucker for good herb-section :) And it cost less that 8$, including shipping.

Quote from: Aos;445546I've played a lot of ED (1e), and A lot of (TSR) D&D and I have to disagree- to a point, anyway. Everything that ED "fixes" in D&D can be dealt with in a paragraph or two of house rules  (or by just ignoring some shit) without marrying the mechanics to any sort of setting in the way ED is married to Barsaive.  

I guess if you like having a setting hardwired into the rules, maybe ED does 'fix' D&D, but, for me, more than anything else, that was the deal breaker.

Beyond that, after not touching D&D for well over a decade I relearned the system in minutes; I tried to do the same with ED and decided it was not worth the trouble. Thread magic: wtf?  Opening the core book with fiction. For the love of God, stop! Also, first edition ED had the worst monster book I have ever fucking seen.

Wonder whether anybody would have paid any attention to Earthdawn to begin with, if the first edition was not originally published by FASA.

If I didn't know any better, I would have thought Earthdawn was a mediocre "brand extension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_extension)" of Shadowrun.

Quote from: noisms;300442Dragon Warriors.

This. And by that I mean: underrated by the designer (Dave Morris) himself. (http://fabledlands.blogspot.com/2010/08/fury-of-deep.html#comments) Also the comment (therein) by Simon Bray:

QuoteI love Dragon Warriors, it was my second game behind RQ and opened my eyes to worlds beyond Glorantha. I bought all the new books, I contributed to the wiki and the fan sites, but I constantly felt that the rules were too shallow for the setting, although I have had hell of a lot of fun with them. When I demoed DW to young players at ConQuest in Derby this year it was a fun game, but the mechanics were poorly received and this saddened me. I even ran the game for Loz Whittaker the author MRQ2 and Mark Galeotti one of the Heroquest developers we had a blast, but all of us perpetually wanted to tweak the rules.

'Gosh! We ran Swords & Wizardry last night, and we had a ton of fun, but the mechanics are soo shallow! We constantly had to add stuff.'

Arcanum ( 2ed. "Beastiary" has some awesome art!)
High Fantasy (very bad art)
Sword Bearer (very cool and simple game with a nifty magick system)
Morpheus (Multi Genre)

And my favorite pony..."The Highest Level of all Fantasy Wargaming"

That "Maelstrom" game sounds cool...will be ordering that soon...:)

Runequest (but I hate Glorantha)
Ars Magica

Quote from: ggroy;445554Wonder whether anybody would have paid any attention to Earthdawn to begin with, if the first edition was not originally published by FASA.

If I didn't know any better, I would have thought Earthdawn was a mediocre "brand extension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_extension)" of Shadowrun.

Well, the art sold me. It has some lovely color plates, and when I looked at them, I wanted to run the game. At the time (c.1993) I was not even aware of the existence of Shadowrun. We were casting around for an FRPG and  it did seem to me that Earthdawn fixed D&D. It has problems of its own, however, that became evident to us over time (we played a weekly campaign for about 2 years).

Quote from: Aos;445562Well, the art sold me. It has some lovely color plates, and when I looked at them, I wanted to run the game. At the time (c.1993) I was not even aware of the existence of Shadowrun. We were casting around for an FRPG and  it did seem to me that Earthdawn fixed D&D. It has problems of its own, however, that became evident to us over time (we played a weekly campaign for about 2 years).

I thought the artwork was cool too, many years ago.

I never played Earthdawn back in the day.  (I didn't play any rpg games at all during the 1990's).  I've only played a few evening pickup games of 1E Earthdawn a few years ago.

I only ever got some Earthdawn books from friends selling me their old rpg book collections for a pittance (or giving it me).  At best, I thought they were largely mediocre reading material with some deviations from generic D&D tropes.  I certainly would have never bought any new Earthdawn books on my own.

Quote from: ggroy;445568I thought the artwork was cool too, many years ago.

I never played Earthdawn back in the day.  (I didn't play any rpg games at all during the 1990's).  I've only played a few evening pickup games of 1E Earthdawn a few years ago.

I only ever got some Earthdawn books from friends selling me their old rpg book collections for a pittance (or giving it me).  At best, I thought they were largely mediocre reading material with some deviations from generic D&D tropes.  I certainly would have never bought any new Earthdawn books on my own.

Yeah, the supplemental setting writings were very lackluster. As I said above, the monster book was awful. It was written in 90's style first person from the perspective of a dragon or something. I think I bought four of five splats for it and found the setting overall dull as dishwater. It put my players and me off published settings, really.

Quote from: Aos;445562Well, the art sold me. It has some lovely color plates, and when I looked at them, I wanted to run the game.

Same here. The art (including some of the box art and colour cartography) really communicated the setting very well. Plus, unlike AD&D 2E, it was readily available in German. Even the novels got translated! And Kubasik's first novel really brought the world alive for us. We hated the system with a passion though, but coming from a similar experience (The Dark Eye) softened the impact.

Rereading the novel last winter, I was astonished how much I still enjoyed it, as I expected the revisit to be just as painful as the Dark Sun novels. The RPG has not aged remotely as well, afaic. The 'cleaned up' 3rd edition (Mongoose) (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1700) left me lukewarm.

Quote from: Windjammer;445582Same here. The art (including some of the box art and colour cartography) really communicated the setting very well. Plus, unlike AD&D 2E, it was readily available in German. Even the novels got translated! And Kubasik's first novel really brought the world alive for us. We hated the system with a passion though, but coming from a similar experience (The Dark Eye) softened the impact.

I was flipping through the 1e core book this morning, and I still like the just about all of the color art quite a bit; the black and white stuff ranges from being very cool to pure shit, though.

Quote from: Aos;445572Yeah, the supplemental setting writings were very lackluster. As I said above, the monster book was awful. It was written in 90's style first person from the perspective of a dragon or something. I think I bought four of five splats for it and found the setting overall dull as dishwater. It put my players and me off published settings, really.

Until recently, I never had the opportunity to be disappointed by published settings.

Back in the day, I had the original 1E AD&D Forgotten Realms "grey box" and the first several FR supplement books.  Shortly before 2E AD&D was released, I stopped playing rpg games altogether and took a long 15+ year hiatus.  Over those 15+ years, I occasionally got some rpg books from friends selling me their rpg book collections for a pittance (or just giving it to me).  Some of those books were 2E AD&D Forgotten Realms titles and older stuff like 1E AD&D Greyhawk, which were half decent reads.  (They didn't have many duds).

When I got back into rpg games shortly after 3.5E D&D was released, I picked up a few supplement books like the 3E Forgotten Realms campaign setting book, 3.5E Eberron campaign setting book, and later Castlemourn.  These setting books turned out to be good reads.  (I didn't pick up many of the subsequent WotC 3.5E FR and Eberron splatbooks, until more recently).


The first opportunity I ever had with being eventually disappointed by a setting, was Pathfinder's Golarion.

Initially I liked the Pathfinder adventure path books, and the supplement setting books they were publishing back in 2008 and early-mid 2009.  Back then, they were purportedly writing the Pathfinder Chronicles splatbooks for 3.5E rules (nominally) or being relatively system neutral for the setting type supplement books.  They were relatively easy to use with my 4E D&D game at the time.  (Some books were kinda useless for 4E, such as the "Revisited" monster books and player character race books).

After the release of the Pathfinder core books in mid-late 2009, more and more of the supplement books were becoming crunch heavy and/or were titles which were largely useless to me (ie. Pathfinder Society, NPC Guide, Faction Guide, Adventurer's Armory, etc ...).  Though in the end, this isn't too surprising once they have their own core rulebooks published.

It seems to me when being on a setting splatbook treadmill, cranking out so much (perceived) useless stuff for a setting seems to eventually spoil it for me.


In hindsight if I had continued to buy Forgotten Realms books regularly for several years into 2E AD&D, I probably would have eventually become disappointed with the FR treadmill too.

Quote from: ggroy;445588It seems to me when being on a setting splatbook treadmill, cranking out so much (perceived) useless stuff for a setting seems to eventually spoil it for me.


In hindsight if I had continued to buy Forgotten Realms books regularly for several years into 2E AD&D, I probably would have eventually become disappointed with the FR treadmill too.

I think this is a pretty good argument in favor of the 4e "two books and out" strategy with settings such as DS. I think if things go too far and into too much detail,  there is nothing for you to explore with your own imagination as a game master.

Quote from: Aos;445591I think this is a pretty good argument in favor of the 4e "two books and out" strategy with settings such as DS. I think if things go too far and into too much detail,  there is nothing for you to explore with your own imagination as a game master.

Definitely.

When I eventually picked up many other 3E/3.5E Forgotten Realms and Eberron splatbooks (from the bargain bins in 2008-2009), it turned out most of them were rather superfluous or useless.  Many of them weren't even that interesting as pleasure reading.

In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't buy these books at full price when they were first released.

Quote from: Windjammer;445555This. And by that I mean: underrated by the designer (Dave Morris) himself. (http://fabledlands.blogspot.com/2010/08/fury-of-deep.html#comments)

Re-reading that post and comments (especially the Simon Bray comment) I must be the only person in the world who felt that the world of Legend and the Dragon Warriors rules were a perfect match...

On Dragon Warriors: Morris' view of what the world *should* have and how it was presented were slightly at odds - 'real' Legend apparently shouldn't have orcs and stuff.
I'm another weirdo though - I like the DW system more than the setting, I think, so I'm another 'minority of one'.  I really liked armour bypass rolls, spell expiry rolls (something D&D got eventually but in a form I find unpalatable in 4e 'saving throws'), psychic fatigue rolls and a few other things.

(And another friend in my group is planning on using DW to run a one-off adventure based on the old 'Blood Valley' books in a month or so, though I don't think that he particularly doesn't Legend).

My vote for underappreciated fantasy RPG is Board Enterprises' LegendQuest, again for system rules more than anything. I picked this one up on .pdf from DriveThru after reading the review in Dragon #195.

There's a pile of Earthdawn core books, ED companion, and adventures at my local Half Price Books. All 2e. Prices are around $10-$20, at least for the big books. If anyone's interested, I could post a list of what's available. Personally, it piqued my interest but, although I liked the artwork and some of the races, I wasn't so keen on the setting or the mechanics. (They seemed like someone had taken D&D 3.x and then changed how all the die rolls work.)

On-topic, lately I've been taken by a game called Shades of Fantasy. It's very much in the mold of '80's D&D-clones; in other words, a cousin of Palladium 1e and Bard Games' Atlantis/Arcanum, although it uses percentile dice for many things. I can describe it at more length if anyone's interested; in the meantime, here's the RPGGeek listing: link (http://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/50057/shades-of-fantasy).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;445607(And another friend in my group is planning on using DW to run a one-off adventure based on the old 'Blood Valley' books in a month or so, though I don't think that he particularly doesn't Legend).

Blood Valley as in the Duelmaster book? I used to own a Speccy computer game based on that.

Quote from: GrimGent;445630Blood Valley as in the Duelmaster book? I used to own a Speccy computer game based on that.

Yep that's the one! He knows I've at least browsed it (if forever ago) so he's probably redoing it a fair bit, but it'll definitely be set on Orb still.
Interesting - I hadn't known there was a computer game.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;445629There's a pile of Earthdawn core books, ED companion, and adventures at my local Half Price Books. All 2e. ... I wasn't so keen on the setting or the mechanics. (They seemed like someone had taken D&D 3.x and then changed how all the die rolls work.).

Actually, 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.

Some games mentioned herein -- The Fantasy Trip, Dragonquest and Chivalry & Sorcery, for instance -- have I think been rated pretty fairly.

TFT is a bit rare, but so far from being under-rated it is perhaps very slightly over-rated by those of us (for I am one) who are big fans. I cannot think of any less than glowing review of the game system ever, and it seems to be known of much more widely than its actual distribution.

Dragonquest 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.

C&S was from the start aimed at an especially committed breed, and the mode of campaign for which it provides has only become less prevalent over the decades. It gets plenty of appreciation from a distance, I think, considering how rare it has ever been to find it actually being played. It's not the only of FGU's games with an exaggerated reputation for complexity, but the exaggeration is not by too much.

Empire of the Petal Throne is another case, I think, not of many gamers under-rating it but of many fans over-rating its appeal to John Q. Public. I mean here not just the original game but the beautifully depicted world of Tekumel that made it such a different experience from D&D.

Quote from: Windjammer;445637the 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.

Tweet designed "Ars Magica".

I still think GURPS 3e makes for some of the coolest low fantasy gaming there is.  It's not so hot at the high powered stuff like the Myth game, but for grungy medieval life where what magic there is may take you years of study just to light a candle, it's pretty damn awesome.

I still have fond memories about the two adventures in the original 3e Basic Set, and the look of the pre-revised book was just so awesome, very old-fashioned look to it.

Have I recommended Everstone: Blood Legacy?

Quote from: Windjammer;445637Actually, historically the relation goes the other way round.

Oh, I wasn't claiming that one was derived from the other, although your comment is interesting. My point was more that since I'm not too keen on 3e, ED is an even harder sell.

Quote[T]he creative roots for 3.0 are far less well documented...

Some have claimed to see some Talislanta in it; Tweet revised Tal 3e for WotC, so that would make sense. Pretty much all of Tal is now freely downloadable, so you might take a look at that if you're curious.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;445662...
Some have claimed to see some Talislanta in it; Tweet revised Tal 3e for WotC, so that would make sense. Pretty much all of Tal is now freely downloadable, so you might take a look at that if you're curious.

Maybe a little Ars Magica with its attribute + skill + d10 compared to a target difficulty. Also by J. Tweet.

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.

I don't know if you've seen this discussion/link by Caesar Slaad ?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;29180"The other designers already had a core mechanic similar to the current one when I joined the design team, and I've seen the same basic idea in a few other games as well." - J. Tweet. ;)

(Link for reference, as well as my own purposes, because I know I am going to have to look this up again (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/feature/-/99666/002-1718461-4161628).)

There are lots of influences that go to and fro in the game community, and lots of parallel evolution. I think it's fair to cite some RQ, ars magica, and Rolemaster (remember what Monte was doing before he started working for TSR/Wizards? :) ), but I think that RPGPundit has a good point in that its more likely than not that many things that supposedly D&D got from other games, D&D got from earlier iterations of D&D.

This link here also discusses some more details of how Runequest influenced Tweet
http://www.jonathantweet.com/jotgamerunequest.html (http://www.jonathantweet.com/jotgamerunequest.html)
the link from there where he says 'I owe a lot to Runequest' - notes a number of rules ported directly from RQ to 3E, including nonabilities, Sz modifier to AC, object hardness, defined item creation, prestige classes, monster templates, armour check penalties and crits.

Moving into IMHO territory, Rolemaster has a system of class and cross-class skills, as well as maximum Dex from armour I believe, which is presumably Monte Cook influence. There was a Piazza article on this that I'm getting that from, but finding the link is going to be awkward.  

Skip Williams has noted that he created the sorceror and given his Sage background I'm inclined to believe he'd be pushing for tighter rules definitions through the text - stuff like how many halflings fit inside a behir. Presumably he pushed for the full-round casting time limitation on spontaneously cast spells (such as Quicken Spell) out of fear he'd create something unbalanced.
 
Attacks of opportunity are from Combat and Tactics in 2E, which Skip also designed - move actions are a cleaning up of its 'half-move' rules. I'd also peg him as a source for Enlarge and perhaps some size category notes - previous Sage rulings in Dragon indicate he's aware of the square/cube law.
I vaguely recall one of the books immediately prior to 4E release (maybe the Rules Cyclopaedia for 3E?) discussing origin of flanking as something which appeared in-house (not from anywhere in particular).
The source of 5' steps is unknown to me, though the same thread with CS' post above I think discusses either Champions or the Rules Cyclopedia for Basic as possible sources.

Monks from 1E were the source for evasion (its a redefinition of a 1E monk ability just described as 'taking no damage on a successful save'), added also to rogues. Other than that from memory, multiclass limitations on monks and paladins were added due to playtester feedback (playtesters thought these classes' organizations wouldn't take kindly to characters leaving their orders, and the limitations were added).

Considerable controversy was seen in Dragon Magazine late in 2E which probably led to some of the specific overhauls from 2E including over-poweredness of multiclassing and crossbow damage being historically inaccurate (though I think increased x-bow damage might also have appeared in Combat & tactics). Dragon #249 has Adkinson preaching on ascending AC - though this is a fairly obvious change and was also previously seen in the fourth edition of Gamma World.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;445634Interesting - I hadn't known there was a computer game.

You haven't missed much. It was a pretty poor adaptation, all in all.

Quote from: GrimGent;445673You haven't missed much. It was a pretty poor adaptation, all in all.

Alas. Oh well, for curiosity's sake have started a new thread in 'Other Games' discussing gamebook adapted games, anyway.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;445672-snip-

Wow... thanks! And, Elliot, I'll track down Talislanta 3rd. (The Ars Magica reference (thanks too) I had already known, but never knew what to make of it.)

Where did attacks of opportunity originate from?

Going back further into history, the THAC0 mechanic used for the to-hit attack rolls in 2E AD&D, was well known to Gary Gygax and Tim Kask back in the 1970's before the 1E AD&D DMG was released.

A recent post by Tim Kask (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kask).

http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1045226#p1045226

Quote from: Tim Kask on THAC0I "stole" THAC0 for my OD&D style (which freely advocates stealing whatever looks good and fits well) as soon as Gary and I came up with it, which was actually some months before the book was published. Lots of people that were exposed to it used it; lots more didn't. We saw it as a means to facilitate quick mental computations for the DM.

For ascending AC and BAB in 3E D&D, it appears Peter Adkison was an advocate for it.

There was an issue of Dragon Magazine back in the late 1990's which had an article authored by Adkison, which outlines how to change the descending AC + THAC0 system of 2E AD&D into an equivalent ascending AC + BAB system.

(I'll have to go through my collection of Dragon Magazine again, to find which exact issue it was in).

Like some others, I loved the Earthdawn game.  It wasn't perfect, but it had so many great -ideas-.  A great in-game reason for dungeons, the Horrors, magic items that got better as you did rather than the D&D model of dumping old items for new, etc.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;445672I vaguely recall one of the books immediately prior to 4E release (maybe the Rules Cyclopaedia for 3E?) discussing origin of flanking as something which appeared in-house (not from anywhere in particular).

Flanking was in the 1E AD&D DMG.  It's in the "special types of attacks" section on page 70 of the 1E AD&D DMG.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;445672Attacks of opportunity are from Combat and Tactics in 2E, which Skip also designed - move actions are a cleaning up of its 'half-move' rules.

The closest analog to "attacks of opportunity" in earlier editions could be the withdrawal/retreat rules in the basic D&D box sets, or the "breaking off from melee" rules on page 70 of the 1E AD&D DMG.


From the Mentzer basic D&D box set:  (page 60 of player's book)

"If a defender wants to back out of a fight at more than 1/2 the normal movement rate, the maneuver is called a Retreat.

The attacker gains a +2 bonus on all Hit Rolls, and the defender's AC is calculated without a shield.  The defender may not attack in return."

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;445672The source of 5' steps is unknown to me, though the same thread with CS' post above I think discusses either Champions or the Rules Cyclopedia for Basic as possible sources.

The origin of the 5' steps, may very well be from using miniatures at the game table.  Ideally one wants most or all of the combat action to be on the table.

For example, magic missile has a range of 150' for a level 1 magic-user in the Mentzer basic D&D box set.  So on a scale of one step representing a 5' length, the range of a magic missile is 30 steps.  On a table with 1" representing one step, 30 steps would be almost the length of a yardstick on a table.

Quote from: Eugene;445687Like some others, I loved the Earthdawn game.  It wasn't perfect, but it had so many great -ideas-.  A great in-game reason for dungeons, the Horrors, magic items that got better as you did rather than the D&D model of dumping old items for new, etc.

Well, as a GM, and a player, I've never been bog on magic items.
The in game rational for dungeons is defintely cool- but more as an over all concept (i.e. you can have an in game rational for dungeons) than the specific execution, imo.

Quote from: ggroy;445696The origin of the 5' steps, may very well be from using miniatures at the game table.  Ideally one wants most or all of the combat action to be on the table.

For example, magic missile has a range of 150' for a level 1 magic-user in the Mentzer basic D&D box set.  So on a scale of one step representing a 5' length, the range of a magic missile is 30 steps.  On a table with 1" representing one step, 30 steps would be almost the length of a yardstick on a table.

I don't think he was referring to the use of a grid ruled in 5' squares, but the actual rule about 5' steps in d20 combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#take5FootStep).

Can you people not shut up about D&D for two seconds?

I really don't think it qualifies for the title of the thread, especially not on this site.

Anyway, back on topic, I've always kind of wanted to check out The Dark Eye, ever since I played the Drakensang game on PC.  It was a really nifty CRPG, with a very old-school tabletop feel to it, and an intriguing setting.

I know a couple of our local Germans rail against it as if it were the Devil's own RPG, but it seemed pretty nifty to me.

I've got a copy of the Fanpro translation in PDF, I just haven't gotten around to reading it just yet.

Quote from: KenHR;445729I don't think he was referring to the use of a grid ruled in 5' squares, but the actual rule about 5' steps in d20 combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#take5FootStep).

This 5' step rule looks kinda like shifting in 4E D&D.

Quote from: J Arcane;445736Can you people not shut up about D&D for two seconds?

I really don't think it qualifies for the title of the thread, especially not on this site.

Anyway, back on topic, I've always kind of wanted to check out The Dark Eye, ever since I played the Drakensang game on PC.  It was a really nifty CRPG, with a very old-school tabletop feel to it, and an intriguing setting.

I know a couple of our local Germans rail against it as if it were the Devil's own RPG, but it seemed pretty nifty to me.

I've got a copy of the Fanpro translation in PDF, I just haven't gotten around to reading it just yet.

Well, we were talking about Earthdawn, which you can't really discuss without talking about D&D, because it was targeted at D&D players and designed to fix D&D. Really it was.

Quote from: Aos;445747Well, we were talking about Earthdawn, which you can't really discuss without talking about D&D, because it was targeted at D&D players and designed to fix D&D. Really it was.

And what about the latest outburst of rabbinic navelgazing over the historical development of D&D 3.0 design concepts?

What does the history of the 5' step have to do with "underrated fantasy RPGs"?

Quote from: J Arcane;445760And what about the latest outburst of rabbinic navelgazing over the historical development of D&D 3.0 design concepts?

What does the history of the 5' step have to do with "underrated fantasy RPGs"?

I have no idea; I was merely speaking of my own "contribution."

Quote from: J Arcane;445760And what about the latest outburst of rabbinic navelgazing over the historical development of D&D 3.0 design concepts?

What does the history of the 5' step have to do with "underrated fantasy RPGs"?

Conversations drift.  I'm sorry to have contributed to your rising blood pressure, J, but for my part I was only trying to correct someone's misinterpretation of a previous post.

On the original thread topic of Underrated RPGs, I probably should mention mention SenZar. This one used to get a huge amount of hate on RPGnet as worst game ever, but its actually not bad IMHO. I think jrients said on his blog (I'll paraphrase here), 'prior to 3E, the single tightest design on the market for killing things and taking their stuff'. I think I'd agree. Its a very high-powered system where races and classes are all 'metalled up' a bit from regular Tolkien styles, a neat HP/power power equivalence system for spells, interesting coinage and tons of weapon materials. Not bad art, provided you don't mind extra cheesecake.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;445882Not bad art, provided you don't mind extra cheesecake.

I insist on it, actually.

Just back from a convention, so posting a bit late. Lots of love for TFT, SwordBearer and Dragonquest. Also really enjoyed Lace and Steel. I thought it did a good job of capturing the swashbuckler vibe and mixing it with fantasy settings.

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

Did 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.

Quote from: J Arcane;445736Anyway, back on topic, I've always kind of wanted to check out The Dark Eye, ever since I played the Drakensang game on PC.  It was a really nifty CRPG, with a very old-school tabletop feel to it, and an intriguing setting. (...) I've got a copy of the Fanpro translation in PDF, I just haven't gotten around to reading it just yet.

TDE's main draw has always been the world rather than the ruleset, so I'd strongly recommend getting World of Aventurica (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1932564063/ref=tmm_pap_used_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=used). The (English) game's website is sadly now defunct, but can be accessed here (http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20031017154104/http://www.thedarkeye.net/).

That apart, I'd recommend this online resource (http://www.aventuriens-welt.de/aventurischer_atlas.php), which contains all the cartography. It's an interactive atlas, so you click on a certain area on the world map. Then a small close up opens, click again, and you got an image of the region. E.g., here's Orkland (http://www.aventuriens-welt.de/bilder/karten/orkland.jpg); or Thorwal (http://www.aventuriens-welt.de/bilder/karten/thorwal.jpg), home of the vikings. Speaking of whom, heading over to this part of the same address (http://www.aventuriens-welt.de/aventurische_namen.php), you got a drop down list of Aventuria character names. Click "Thorwalsche Namen" on the drop down list, and you can download a generated PDF.

And oh, from my (Euro-centric) point of view it's a tad ironic to complain about others speaking about D&D in this thread, only to mention the game that famously outstripped D&D in commercial success around my parts of the world. ;)

I'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.

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 (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.

Quote from: Phillip;446193Try not reading yourself between the lines in an intentionally absurd way.

Having actually read the discussion, whereas you once again went off in the long-winded, basically masturbatory fashion that is, apparently, your modus operandi without having actually read what was said, I win, right?

Especially given that many folks, myself included, went beyond a cursory examination of Lords of Creations and concluded it wasn't some missed gem. Being superficial isn't actually the only possible manner in which someone could come to a conclusion that doesn't match yours...

Conversing with you reminds me of conversing with my grandfather, who is also quite old and stuck in the his ways.

Maybe we should put you in a corner, too...

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;446179I mean Nyagga? Really?

I love the Nyagga! Very creepy and Lovecraftian. There's definitely hooks there to work them into the game too, although I've never seen them actually used.

Quote from: Sigmund;446179I mean Nyagga? Really?

I love the Nyagga! Very creepy and Lovecraftian. There's definitely hooks there to work them into the game too, although I've never seen them actually used...

Quote from: Phillip;446197Hmm. Maybe in...

Yeah, that's it. Way to be dismissive rather than address the point. By this I take it that you're saying other games are absolutely perfect, needing no further development and having no flaws at all. There really isn't 4 editions of the worlds least underrated FRPG, right? If you can't address the point then just admit it instead of puking out petulant BS like this. OD&D was even less developed than DQ and certainly isn't underrated I would say, so try again. DQ is underrated precisely because folks decided it "sucked" without even giving it a shot. Did you ever actually play it yourself even?

Tell ya what, rather than come in here and start shitting on posts folks (like me) made 2 fucking years ago about their opinions on under-rated games, perhaps you might be better served asking why they arrived at that opinion. Coming in here like you know fucking better than all the rest of us and that your pronouncements of what "underrated" should mean and what games do and don't qualify is just a quick way to be dismissed as an arrogant joke.

Quote from: Seanchai;446203Especially given that many folks, myself included, went beyond a cursory examination of Lords of Creations and concluded it wasn't some missed gem. Being superficial isn't actually the only possible manner in which someone could come to a conclusion that doesn't match yours...

You REALLY ARE that fucking stupid?

You REALLY can't add up (1) I never said that plus (2) I never said that, and get the sum of (3) I never said that?

Bullshit. You aren't that much of an idiot. You're just that much of an asshole.

Quote from: Phillip;446297You're just that much of an asshole.

Irony, thy milk is sweet.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;446273By this I take it that you're saying other games are absolutely perfect, needing no further development and having no flaws at all.

No. I'm pointing out that you made the same observation I did. How then is it "under rating"?

QuoteDQ is underrated precisely because folks decided it "sucked" without even giving it a shot.

That is not the claim you made. Indeed, what you wrote was just the opposite -- that folks actually gave the game a shot and then sometimes did not get into it. That happens to be what I have seen.

QuoteDid you ever actually play it yourself even?

Yes, and as I mentioned, I like it.

Quoteperhaps you might be better served asking why they arrived at that opinion.

That is precisely what I have asked. Why don't you answer the question, instead of attacking me for asking it?

What does 'underrating' mean to you? It appears to mean observing that many people find not their cup of tea a game that you (and, coincidentally, I) happen to hold in high regard.

That's not what 'underrating' sensibly means to me. 'Underrating' to me means rating something -- complexity, realism, flexibility, speed of play, balance, variety of character types or magic or monsters, or what have you -- as less than what it really is.

That could mean rating something as horrible when it is simply below average, or rating something as merely very good when it is excellent.

Having a different hierarchy of values in the first place is something else. Someone who simply prefers X to Y can acknowledge something as the very pinnacle of Y-dom yet not want to have it replace his merely adequate X.

Quote from: The_Shadow;446257I love the Nyagga! Very creepy and Lovecraftian. There's definitely hooks there to work them into the game too, although I've never seen them actually used...

Meh, not the biggest fan of Lovecraft either. I could see Nyagga as a monster though I suppose.

Quote from: Phillip;446305No. I'm pointing out that you made the same observation I did. How then is it "under rating"?

Because the layout does not directly influence the game's playability.

QuoteThat is not the claim you made. Indeed, what you wrote was just the opposite -- that folks actually gave the game a shot and then sometimes did not get into it. That happens to be what I have seen.

I know very well what claim I made, and that was, again, that folks i have personally spoken with have either "heard from a guy" that the game wasn't fun, or looked through the book and didn't like how it looked and so weren't willing to play it. I won't be writing this out again.

QuoteYes, and as I mentioned, I like it.

Awesome.

QuoteThat is precisely what I have asked. Why don't you answer the question, instead of attacking me for asking it?[/quote

Because I have already answered it more than once.

QuoteWhat does 'underrating' mean to you? It appears to mean observing that many people find not their cup of tea a game that you (and, coincidentally, I) happen to hold in high regard.

That's not what 'underrating' sensibly means to me. 'Underrating' to me means rating something -- complexity, realism, flexibility, speed of play, balance, variety of character types or magic or monsters, or what have you -- as less than what it really is.

That could mean rating something as horrible when it is simply below average, or rating something as merely very good when it is excellent.

Having a different hierarchy of values in the first place is something else. Someone who simply prefers X to Y can acknowledge something as the very pinnacle of Y-dom yet not want to have it replace his merely adequate X.

Of course your interpretation of "underrating" is the sensible one, that means that anything I type in response that doesn't match what you typed must not be sensible. I'm going to do it anyway because luckily for me I don't feel the need to accept things just because you say so. Underrating something is what folks do when the form an unfavorable opinion on a thing without directly experiencing the thing for themselves. I knew players who would play TFT and Battletech, yet balked at DQ, so i knew it wasn't the tactical combat. I knew players who "heard from a friend" that DQ was "too complicated", or "too much like a wargame", or just plain "isn't enough like D&D". I'd call that underrating. If you did not encounter these sorts of complaints when trying to get folks to play DQ then rockin, but I did, hence my post of "Dragonquest" 2 years ago. Just like, IMO, Tekumel is overrated. It's still all opinion isn't it?

I like DQ a lot. I have introduced it, and Universe, to a number of people, some of whom placed a similar value on what the system delivered and others of whom did not.

There are plenty of counts on which someone could -- and many people did -- pass up Lords of Creation without even opening the box, counts that I would not call 'underrating'.

The game-mechanical system is nothing spectacular. There's no such striking innovation as in, e.g., Marvel Super Heroes or the Pacesetter games. I don't think that an assessment of merely 'average' or "more of the same old same old" would be underrating on that count. The general familiarity and simplicity are virtues to some of us, but marks against the game to others.

The game's chief claim to novelty was its sheer range of elements and influences, covering the gamut from Scythian mythology to slasher movies and beyond in every direction across history, literature and pop culture.

This was a few years before GURPS (perhaps even before that was Steve Jackson's joke name for a hypothetical game). This was back when the chief alternative for such far-flung adventures, apart from the similarly disparaged Timemaster, was Fringeworthy -- which had baroque mechanics in spades, but also did not take itself terribly seriously and didn't have much room left for describing weird creatures and gadgets and worlds and powers after detailing precisely which toe bone got hit with what kind of ammunition.

As I stated, the only 'underrating' I had in mind was the assumption that anything 'lacking' the Pretentious aspect or a certain level of arbitrary complication in the mechanics was a shit game because it was "just for kids".

A game that refers to the visionary poetry of William Blake is perhaps not especially aimed at children. Neither is the employment of elegant and fast-playing mechanics rather than cumbersome ones necessarily an impediment to richly engaging scenarios. A sense of humor about the fabulous is not intrinsically incompatible with seriously dramatic adventures.

A real requirement for baroque rules sets or pretentious blather for their own sakes would be among the responses counted as other than underrating. What's simply not there really isn't there, no 'under' about it!

It's the false equivalence of those with other things that brings in the issue of underrating, to my mind -- especially in light of where I saw some people go and what they ended up doing in terms of RPGs.

Quote from: SigmundI know very well what claim I made, and that was, again, that folks i have personally spoken with have either "heard from a guy" that the game wasn't fun...

Well, so long as what you in fact wrote and did not write is in fact still up there for anyone to see, I am content that any oversight on my part shall be plain. For any misreading on my part, I apologize.

QuoteUnderrating something is what folks do when the form an unfavorable opinion on a thing without directly experiencing the thing for themselves.

I suppose we must simply agree to disagree. Personally, I think that considering a crap game a crap game on the basis of having heard that it's a crap game could be a number of things -- but not 'underrating' it!

Anyhow, it's a loss to people who would enjoy the game if they really have deprived themselves of that pleasure on a false basis, and I can appreciate that it could be a loss to you as well if you would have enjoyed playing DQ with them.

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.

I think it's BECAUSE of that horrible cover art that I've always wanted to get a copy of High Fantasy... for whatever reason bad art can (sometimes) hold out a promise of strange possibilities that traditional high-end illustration never can. It requires a reading between the lines, "what is THAT supposed to be?" and imaginative interpretation.

Not that I would ever argue that High Fantasy is under-rated...

Quote from: Phillip;446383I suppose we must simply agree to disagree. Personally, I think that considering a crap game a crap game on the basis of having heard that it's a crap game could be a number of things -- but not 'underrating' it!

Anyhow, it's a loss to people who would enjoy the game if they really have deprived themselves of that pleasure on a false basis, and I can appreciate that it could be a loss to you as well if you would have enjoyed playing DQ with them.

Whereas I always consider blindly taking other people's word on something and refusing to experience it to be "underrating" it, especially when the complaints are not based on actual experience. If someone has a legitimate complaint so be it, but my experience suggests to me that DQ is not too complicated, does not get in the way while playing, and even is fairly easy to reference once one learns the system used to organise it. I found it an easier book to reference than my 1e D&D books. IMO most of the criticisms of DQ are not, in fact, what i would consider to be valid criticisms. I certainly don't consider it a "crap" game. When considering a game, I will consider the opinions of others, but I never completely discount something solely on the word of other people, and I definitely won't go around sharing a critique of something I didn't even experience for myself. At most I might say that I heard it was "whatever", because all this shit is opinion and taste. I suppose that also means part of considering something "underrated" to me is when something doesn't receive as wide-spread acceptance as I think it deserves, based on info I think is inaccurate. So am I wrong to think of "underrated" as meaning this? Can "underrated" only mean what you say it does? What constitutes "rating" something and who gets to do it? Usually, when I hear someone talking about something being "underrated" or "overrated" it seems they're talking about hype and public opinion. Are we discussing something different here? I thought I was contributing to the discussion, but if that's not what we're talking about then I need clarification so that I can contribute more meaningfully... or is this discussion just for special kids who "get it"?

Quote from: Phillip;446067Ditto 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.

true. But it's interesting to note that Aces and Eights just went back to press for a third printing of the premium leathered book. Almost six years after it's five years after its initial release It's done very well for us and continues to sell.

It's actually spiked in sales again recently. So while a western may never sale in D&D numbers out the door they do sell consistently.

As Good as I thought A&8 was I really thought it would be a one-shot product with a shelf life of a few years and that would be it.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;445553Ditto! That cover just sold me and I'm a sucker for good herb-section :) And it cost less that 8$, including shipping.

My copy of Maelstrom just arrived and what was on Ebay described as a "fair reading copy" turned out to be pretty close to mint, especially for a book published in 1984. So I'm quite happy and look forward to flicking through it... and yes, that is quite an impressive herb section.

Quote from: JollyRB;447098true. But it's interesting to note that Aces and Eights just went back to press for a third printing of the premium leathered book. Almost six years after it's five years after its initial release It's done very well for us and continues to sell.

It's actually spiked in sales again recently. So while a western may never sale in D&D numbers out the door they do sell consistently.

As Good as I thought A&8 was I really thought it would be a one-shot product with a shelf life of a few years and that would be it.

That's very impressive, and very good news!

RPGPundit

Quote from: JollyRB;447098true. But it's interesting to note that Aces and Eights just went back to press for a third printing of the premium leathered book. Almost six years after it's five years after its initial release It's done very well for us and continues to sell.

It's actually spiked in sales again recently. So while a western may never sale in D&D numbers out the door they do sell consistently.

As Good as I thought A&8 was I really thought it would be a one-shot product with a shelf life of a few years and that would be it.

That is indeed very good news. A&8 is one fine game, and deserves to be played.

I'm glad it's getting the recognition. :)