It's something I've never really understood as the game seems to be one of the cleaner OGL "fixes", much more competently assembled than PF for sure, but not many people know about it and it seems to have completely failed to capture an audience. I've always been curious about the title and since stumbling onto the forums here I figured someone here might have a better understanding of the industry and what makes a game succeed then I do.
The big problem is that while it's a better version of the 3.x rules, at the same time, it basically breaks compatibility with them and D&D in general. Pathfinder 1e wasn't great, but it was basically D&D 3.75, so people who liked 3rd edition could keep playing it with little problem and get new material. Paizo also had an association with D&D (via Dragon and Dungeon magazines and making adventures), while Crafty Games did not.
I'm guessing timing. Spycraft was one of the more popular modern d20 efforts, but Fantasycraft came along quite a bit later at the tail end of the d20 craze, maybe even after D&D 4E had been released.
I remember seeing it at a convention and talking with a company rep about it when it was first released. That must have been like 2009-2010? I know Pathfinder was out and was already becoming the next big thing by that point because it was my wife's first con and she got into several PF games.
Is compatibility with other games material that critical to success? I see it mentioned here a lot but I've never considered that a factor in purchasing or playing games personally, neither has anyone I've played with in pretty much my entire adult life. I guess if I'm the odd one out on that it could explain why it seems so arbitrary for the game not to excel despite it's crunch competence.
I'm guessing because of when it was launched. When 3E was launched, it was obvious that this was the version of D&D edging a little into the GURPS/Hero System way of playing, while still being D&D. A lot of people thought that was what they wanted. By the time Fantasy Craft was available, many of those same people had realized that edging even more into the GURPS/Hero System way of playing was the last thing they wanted.
It's not as if they marketed it intensely, or provided a ton of support for it, either.
Granted, I understand, they're a significantly smaller publisher than WotC or Paizo, but look at the support Spycraft got.
I've never seen a FantasyCraft print product in the wild, and on one single occasion, a Spycraft 2.0 book.
When 3E/3.5 was in its prime, I saw Spycraft and Shadowforce Archer stuff all over the place.
What does it do differently or better than all the D&D versions out there?
I think the biggest reason (not the only) Fantasycraft never took off was it was released in the same time as Pathfinder.
Otherwise I think it's best iteration of 3.x ever made.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1086710What does it do differently or better than all the D&D versions out there?
I know I've posted *extensively* about this... let me find one of my old posts.
This is one of the many threads (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?30168-Let-s-talk-about-Fantasy-Craft&highlight=Fantasy+Craft)we've talked about it at length!
It's also a very dense book, with a lot of jargon, released at a time the market was moving away from that kind of thing, and without the bright colors and neverending support of Pathfinder, or the customer loyalty Paizo had cultivated during years of making Dragon and Dungeon magazines for the hardcore D&D fanbase. :)
FantasyCratft core is a very cool book and a very cool system. But an RPG needs a lot more than a system to catch on. It needs a player-base, and it needs support in the form of setting material and adventures.
Pathfinder took off because of its adventure paths. If Paizo had used FantasyCraft as its system, then it would have taken off too with the same support.
Basically, system doesn't matter nearly as much as a lot of hardcore RPGers who hang on out on forums think it matters.
Quote from: Haffrung;1086716FantasyCratft core is a very cool book and a very cool system. But an RPG needs a lot more than a system to catch on. It needs a player-base, and it needs support in the form of setting material and adventures.
Pathfinder took off because of its adventure paths. If Paizo had used FantasyCraft as its system, then it would have taken off too with the same support.
Basically, system doesn't matter nearly as much as a lot of hardcore RPGers who hang on out on forums think it matters.
I never *really* believed this. But this particular event showed me my own bias because 1) I never run modules. 2) Because I never ran modules, the notion of world-building on my own was second nature. Sandbox is king for me. Fantasycraft in my mind, *should* have been a no-brainer.
It's because I made the mistake of assuming that GM's should/could/would be "into" building their own setting/sandbox adventures - I never really realized how much the new generation of players that came into the hobby during 3.0 needed/relied on them.
In hindsight I agree a lot with this being a much larger factor. And it's a real shame, because Fantasycraft kicked Pathfinder's *ass* in every mechanical way as a system. It's there to be a toolkit to create virtually any kind of fantasy setting you could want... it just has no modules to support it. It's made for folks like me, who happen to be an *extreme* minority largely by dint of age and experience more than anything else.
But now that we're in the 5e age... that ship has long sailed.
When life can choose between active and passive, assume most will choose passive. ;) Easy conversion and modules makes all the difference in the world. Few want to have deep thoughts about their tools beyond "This job uses this thingie."
Quote from: tenbones;1086721It's because I made the mistake of assuming that GM's should/could/would be "into" building their own setting/sandbox adventures - I never really realized how much the new generation of players that came into the hobby during 3.0 needed/relied on them.
I disagree with the notion that a desire for published adventures and settings really only became a thing with 3E. The early TSR adventures like Keep on the Borderlands, Hommlet, White Plume Mountain, the Giant-Drow series, etc. not only sold bazillions of copies, they became the touchstones for people sharing their experiences with D&D even decades later.
If you and I play strictly homebrews, what do we really have to share when we talk about our roleplaying experiences? Not much. If we've both played the Temple of Elemental Evil, we probably have a lot to talk about. And that's not new. Even when people who haven't played D&D since 1984 talk to other players, they'll often rattle off the adventures they played to see if there's common ground.
"Did you play Expedition to the Barrier Peaks? Man, that was awesome when you got lasers."
Quote from: tenbones;1086721I never *really* believed this. But this particular event showed me my own bias because 1) I never run modules. 2) Because I never ran modules, the notion of world-building on my own was second nature. Sandbox is king for me. Fantasycraft in my mind, *should* have been a no-brainer.
It's because I made the mistake of assuming that GM's should/could/would be "into" building their own setting/sandbox adventures - I never really realized how much the new generation of players that came into the hobby during 3.0 needed/relied on them.
In hindsight I agree a lot with this being a much larger factor. And it's a real shame, because Fantasycraft kicked Pathfinder's *ass* in every mechanical way as a system. It's there to be a toolkit to create virtually any kind of fantasy setting you could want... it just has no modules to support it. It's made for folks like me, who happen to be an *extreme* minority largely by dint of age and experience more than anything else.
But now that we're in the 5e age... that ship has long sailed.
If it makes you feel any better, reading your posts on Fantasy Craft made me want to take a gander at it even though I intensely dislike the medieval fantasy genre. I bought the entire line in PDF and the core rulebook in print about a month ago, but I've spent most of my free time in Paragon City the past few weeks so I haven't taken a look at it yet. :p
Quote from: Haffrung;1086756I disagree with the notion that a desire for published adventures and settings really only became a thing with 3E. The early TSR adventures like Keep on the Borderlands, Hommlet, White Plume Mountain, the Giant-Drow series, etc. not only sold bazillions of copies, they became the touchstones for people sharing their experiences with D&D even decades later.
That's just it. I'm not saying that published modules came into vogue during 3.0. I'm saying that those of us that came before I *mistakenly* assumed did away with using them. I know when 2e landed I was far more into regional splatbooks that gave me some basic scaffolding to create my own stuff (which I was doing in 1e already - but 2e really went for it).
When 3e came about - I honestly didn't give a flying nut about modules (I still mostly don't). But I disagree that those modules became touchstones with everyone like me in particular. I've played/run all those modules to *death* and I frankly have little to say about them other than that's what I cut my teeth on in terms of figuring out a lot of elements of design I'd use later. But I'll go a bit further below...
Quote from: Haffrung;1086756If you and I play strictly homebrews, what do we really have to share when we talk about our roleplaying experiences? Not much. If we've both played the Temple of Elemental Evil, we probably have a lot to talk about. And that's not new. Even when people who haven't played D&D since 1984 talk to other players, they'll often rattle off the adventures they played to see if there's common ground. "Did you play Expedition to the Barrier Peaks? Man, that was awesome when you got lasers."
See? For me - while we may be doing entirely different things individually, *I* don't have deep discussions about old-school modules much beyond what you just wrote, unless that's the specific topic we're discussing. Instead I look at those modules as varying examples of how I learned to GM through various problems presented - which is unique for every GM and their respective group. I *assume* most GM's that have been gaming since that era have run through those modules a bajillion times - which may not even be true. Because I'm more interested in what GM's are doing now, with the presumption of those experiences under their belt (if applicable) And sure! we can talk specifically about those modules and our experiences, but for me that's like talking about our first girlfriends in junior high/high-school (if applicable)... which frankly holds very little interest to me unless it's for some specific reason.
Mind you - I'm *wrong* about those assumptions as it pertains to the marketing of Fantasycraft. But I feel that Fantasycraft is a system designed for GM's that operate like I do. They want a toolbox. Not a pre-fab boxset with someone else's ideas all laid out. Its for GM's that wanna really dig deep in the mud of their setting (or convert from some established setting) and fine-tune the mechanics to fit your conceits.
And that's an extreme minority of GMs out there that want to do that. As the sales of Fantasycraft attest to. (But it's not the only reason).
Quote from: Apparition;1086770If it makes you feel any better, reading your posts on Fantasy Craft made me want to take a gander at it even though I intensely dislike the medieval fantasy genre. I bought the entire line in PDF and the core rulebook in print about a month ago, but I've spent most of my free time in Paragon City the past few weeks so I haven't taken a look at it yet. :p
Yeah I've been kicking butt in Paragon too... heheheh. Well post up your thoughts on FC when you give it a read-through!
@tenbones: You mentioned it in the old thread you linked earlier, but I have to ask: Exactly what page does this "new GM cheat sheet" exist on? I found one that has a vague "you don't have to use them all if you don't want to", but not one that explicitly recommends what rules to start with, as alluded to in this post.
Quote from: tenbones;772910Everything else is modular subsystems that the GM has to illustrate what is/isn't in play. Even the book itself recommends that you not use *everything* all at once, and gives you a cheat sheet of what you should use if you're new to running it, and that dramatically reduces the complexity factor to something far below standard Pathfinder and its crazy bullshit.
Quote from: tenbones;1086779That's just it. I'm not saying that published modules came into vogue during 3.0. I'm saying that those of us that came before I *mistakenly* assumed did away with using them. I know when 2e landed I was far more into regional splatbooks that gave me some basic scaffolding to create my own stuff (which I was doing in 1e already - but 2e really went for it).
When 3e came about - I honestly didn't give a flying nut about modules (I still mostly don't). But I disagree that those modules became touchstones with everyone like me in particular. I've played/run all those modules to *death* and I frankly have little to say about them other than that's what I cut my teeth on in terms of figuring out a lot of elements of design I'd use later. But I'll go a bit further below...
See? For me - while we may be doing entirely different things individually, *I* don't have deep discussions about old-school modules much beyond what you just wrote, unless that's the specific topic we're discussing. Instead I look at those modules as varying examples of how I learned to GM through various problems presented - which is unique for every GM and their respective group. I *assume* most GM's that have been gaming since that era have run through those modules a bajillion times - which may not even be true. Because I'm more interested in what GM's are doing now, with the presumption of those experiences under their belt (if applicable) And sure! we can talk specifically about those modules and our experiences, but for me that's like talking about our first girlfriends in junior high/high-school (if applicable)... which frankly holds very little interest to me unless it's for some specific reason.
Mind you - I'm *wrong* about those assumptions as it pertains to the marketing of Fantasycraft. But I feel that Fantasycraft is a system designed for GM's that operate like I do. They want a toolbox. Not a pre-fab boxset with someone else's ideas all laid out. Its for GM's that wanna really dig deep in the mud of their setting (or convert from some established setting) and fine-tune the mechanics to fit your conceits.
And that's an extreme minority of GMs out there that want to do that. As the sales of Fantasycraft attest to. (But it's not the only reason).
Actually, I love the idea of a toolbox full of ideas; but I am running away from 3rd Edition levels of complexity. I am creating my own conglomerate of DW, D&D 5E, PF PT, White Box FMAG, and ICRPG. This is just in the form of my own personal DM's Guide, and will most likely never be published. I am just borrowing / stealing good ideas from the creativity of others.
Y'know, is there anything stopping those with FantasyCraft system mastery from putting out their own Adventure Modules? :confused:
If it is the sine qua non of 3.x, and PF is about to let go of the brass ring for PF2, it seems like an opportunity akin to OSR. But then what do we call it? Middle School Renaissance? MSR? Can we find an excuse to add a P at the end, so we can get MSRP? :p
I've been a fan of the Crafty systems ever since they had the Stargate license. I'm currently playing in a FantasyCraft campaign, and it's been fun.
We're currently playing a Pathfinder campaign using FantasyCraft rules.
I don't find it overly crunchy, though I am not playing a mage.
My martial artist doctor character works well enough.
Quote from: Broken Twin;1086799@tenbones: You mentioned it in the old thread you linked earlier, but I have to ask: Exactly what page does this "new GM cheat sheet" exist on? I found one that has a vague "you don't have to use them all if you don't want to", but not one that explicitly recommends what rules to start with, as alluded to in this post.
It's just a small sidebar in the GMing section (which is a very well done section and modular in concept itself. Some of the stuff I don't use, but there's good advice in there for everyone) - around page 357ish or so. In the "How to Run Fantasycraft" section.
Basically it's telling you the integral parts of combat - how to get used to it. Then incorporate the other subsystems as you desire. One of the most fantastic things in FC is the Monster scaler. You can literally create a monster, or use an established monster on the fly, and scale it up or down to fit your needs - even in the middle of combat. For a GM that is new to the system (or new to GMing period) this is a great way to fix the problem with people cleaving to the Challenge Rating bullshit of D&D. You can fix your encounters if you over/under-tuned the fight because you were in "CR-is-King" mode.
Old school GM's didn't have CR. It's a bullshit myth. What I like about FC is you can use they monster creator to do some ingenious things one one handy table to really keep your PC's on their toes and guessing. "Did that Orc just vomit acid on me?"
Quote from: Opaopajr;1086907Y'know, is there anything stopping those with FantasyCraft system mastery from putting out their own Adventure Modules? :confused:
If it is the sine qua non of 3.x, and PF is about to let go of the brass ring for PF2, it seems like an opportunity akin to OSR. But then what do we call it? Middle School Renaissance? MSR? Can we find an excuse to add a P at the end, so we can get MSRP? :p
Nope. But it's like a lot of good alternatives to anything popular. Sometimes there simply is not enough support to escape the gravity well.
Case in point: who is going to write adventures to support a system very few people play for actual publication? FC fans already do it, there's the FC Adventurers Companion (which is AWESOME - a must have if you're going to use Fantasycraft), and it has a bunch of mini-settings and adventures in there. Heck most 3.x/PF content can be *converted* with relative ease by any Fantasycraft GM, but you know... those are Tiger-striped unicorns.
That's one of the real issues - getting GM's out there to push it and use it. I'm not sure there will ever be enough of a fanbase of 3.x to ditch 5e AND PF2 to go back to 3.x mode. Most of 3.x is mechanically broken. The only versions I'd ever recommend: M&M3.0, Fantasycraft, and True 20. All the rest is broken junk.
Quote from: tenbones;1086721It's because I made the mistake of assuming that GM's should/could/would be "into" building their own setting/sandbox adventures - I never really realized how much the new generation of players that came into the hobby during 3.0 needed/relied on them.
It always been this way starting with Judges Guild, the TSR Modules, and Dragon Magazine. Referees that roll their own always been in the minority.
One other major difference between Fantasycraft and Pathfinder it was always clear what was open content in Pathfinder with the Pathfinder Reference Document. Fantasycraft as far as I know never had an SRD and the open content declaration was flawed as it declared many important elements as product identity like all the names of spells.
part of the OGL declaration on page 386, 2nd edition Quoteincluding but not limited to capitalized names, monster names, magic item names, spell names, organization names, Faction names, project names, characters, monsters, magic items, spells, historic events, and organizations;
Quote from: estar;1086933It always been this way starting with Judges Guild, the TSR Modules, and Dragon Magazine. Referees that roll their own always been in the minority.
Yeah. I guess that was my bubble.
Quote from: estar;1086933One other major difference between Fantasycraft and Pathfinder it was always clear what was open content in Pathfinder with the Pathfinder Reference Document. Fantasycraft as far as I know never had an SRD and the open content declaration was flawed as it declared many important elements as product identity like all the names of spells.
part of the OGL declaration on page 386, 2nd edition
As I understand it - if you followed the OGL rules you could probably create a Fantasycraft SRD with no problem. It would be a lot of work though. The inertia of it all is probably enough to ward off all but the biggest die-hards.
Quote from: tenbones;1086943As I understand it - if you followed the OGL rules you could probably create a Fantasycraft SRD with no problem. It would be a lot of work though. The inertia of it all is probably enough to ward off all but the biggest die-hards.
Yup, my view is that every RPG is comprised of two major elements, the mechanics which describes how the "physics" (used very loosely here) work, and the stuff which are useful elements to get a campaign going with the game. For example list of spells or monsters consistent with the mechanics.
If you omit the stuff like Crafty Games did, then now you basically your open content is now at the toolkit level like GURPS or Hero System. So any publisher has to build their own "stuff" to get any use out of it.
If the publisher just interested in adventures, or tweaking a handful of things then they are out luck.
I took a serious look at FantasyCraft back when I was doing the Majestic Wilderlands but the flawed open content took it out of the running.
Quote from: estar;1086951Yup, my view is that every RPG is comprised of two major elements, the mechanics which describes how the "physics" (used very loosely here) work, and the stuff which are useful elements to get a campaign going with the game. For example list of spells or monsters consistent with the mechanics.
If you omit the stuff like Crafty Games did, then now you basically your open content is now at the toolkit level like GURPS or Hero System. So any publisher has to build their own "stuff" to get any use out of it.
If the publisher just interested in adventures, or tweaking a handful of things then they are out luck.
I took a serious look at FantasyCraft back when I was doing the Majestic Wilderlands but the flawed open content took it out of the running.
That is heartbreaking. I would love to see Majestic Wilderlands on the FC engine... there is a lot about FC that makes me sigh. I'm not alone.
Quote from: estar;1086933It always been this way starting with Judges Guild, the TSR Modules, and Dragon Magazine. Referees that roll their own always been in the minority.
GMs who never use published adventures have always been a small minority. So have GMS who only use published adventures. The vast majority of DMs have always done both. Which is why these sorts of polarized discussions - GMs who use published adventures vs GMs who don't - have never reflected reality.
Quote from: tenbones;1086964That is heartbreaking. I would love to see Majestic Wilderlands on the FC engine... there is a lot about FC that makes me sigh. I'm not alone.
It never too late. Look at Fudge and Fate. If you have any pull with Crafty Games tell them to release a decent SRD.
Quote from: Haffrung;1086969Which is why these sorts of polarized discussions - GMs who use published adventures vs GMs who don't - have never reflected reality.
I concur, I stated numerous times that the default reality is that most RPG campaigns are hybrids. Whether it rules, supplements, adventures, or settings.
The only constant is that a referee or group is going to run the campaign in the way they see fit. For some that means everything a publisher releases is the gold standard. For others it core book only everything else is DiY. However for most it about whatever interests them and what they have time for.
Quote from: Haffrung;1086969GMs who never use published adventures have always been a small minority. So have GMS who only use published adventures. The vast majority of DMs have always done both. Which is why these sorts of polarized discussions - GMs who use published adventures vs GMs who don't - have never reflected reality.
I personally use published adventures for my casual group and created adventures for my serious group.
I have been running existing settings in both though.
Oh I see that Mages have magical power per scene.
Yeah that's a hard pass for me. At least with D&D 4e "per encounter" also means "after a 15 minute rest". But I personally do not like magic being tied to goofy refresh mechanics.
Quote from: Haffrung;1086969GMs who never use published adventures have always been a small minority. So have GMS who only use published adventures. The vast majority of DMs have always done both. Which is why these sorts of polarized discussions - GMs who use published adventures vs GMs who don't - have never reflected reality.
When I say I "never" use them... that's probably not accurate. I have used published adventures (usually dungeons but not always) re-worked to fit in my sandbox. So money is still being exchanged. But it's pretty rare.
I've run some of the classics - Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Barrier Peaks and a few others, totally re-skinned and my players never realized it until much later. But again, to you point, it still required a lot of DIY in order to make it work contextually for what I was running. I freely admit I was doing it more as a challenge for myself than because I had nothing to fill in the game-space with content-wise. I thought it would be funny to reskin the spaceship into being a dwarven mine full of golems...
But I kept the vegepygmies... that almost gave it away.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1086981Oh I see that Mages have magical power per scene.
Yeah that's a hard pass for me. At least with D&D 4e "per encounter" also means "after a 15 minute rest". But I personally do not like magic being tied to goofy refresh mechanics.
Contextually it's also because spellcasters have to make a check for every cast. Those assumptions are due entirely to the potential lethality of the non-casters.
Non-casters in FC can be *extremely* dangerous (especially to casters).
Edit: One of the BIGGEST (and I fell into this trap right along with everyone else) problems with presenting FC to D&D players is we bring our D&D assumptions to the game without really letting the Fantasycraft rules sink in. There are boatloads of D&D Sacred Cows that are littering the graveyard when walking into Fantasycraft that we tend to gloss over. I *always* recommend anyone interested in the game to read the book cover to cover TWICE *at minimum* and ask questions first. It's looks like D&D. It smells like D&D. But there are some major differences (good ones imo) that aren't readily apparent.