Who plays multiple Sword and Sorcery RPGs?

[aramis erak]

I don't consider D&D part of the S&S genre, at least not since AD&D 2E, and the way everyone I played with ran 1E, it wasn't either. WAY too much magic in player hands to feel S&S-ish.

I have run WFRP 1E, 2E playtests, and 3E, and those can be run as S&S... and I've done so more than once with 1E...
I have run the old TSR Conan RPG. Surprisingly good variant on FASERIP style mechanics. Sold my decent copy, tho', to pay some bills.

I want to run, at some point, Barbarians of Lemuria.
I want also to try Dragon Warriors at some point; it's dark enough in tone to maybe work for S&S.
I've also done S&S type stuff with Tunnels and Trolls - but the tone was very slapstick, so I wouldn't count it. THe engine can easily do it, tho'.

I've read but not run the Mongoose Conan - it doesn't look like it would evoke the feel of Conan or Kull, but it sure has pretty maps. I d/l'd it when they had it up for free download.

I played in a GURPS Horseclans game once. Like the setting (and the novels), but GURPS didn't feel right at all.

I've run RQ3 as a S&S type setting, too - the magic can mostly be low visibility.

If I were asked to do a Sword&Sorcery type game, I'd probably use either BOL or WFRP 1. Or, perhaps, Cortex Plus... based upon the hacker's guide. Or maybe d6 fantasy.

 

[Jhaelen]

Why do you play more than one system?
Which do you play, and why?
Were there any that you tried and simply did not like? Why not? Was it rules, settings, game group?
How often do you switch back and forth?
Do you get the rules or mechanics confused between the games?

Different RPG systems have different strengths, and I'm a strong believer in using the best system for a given setting / campaign rather than trying to shoehorn everything into the same mechanics. Also, each group involved different players with little overlap.

I've been playing in three different campaigns at the same time: D&D (first 3e, then 4e), Earthdawn, and DSA (Das Schwarze Auge, aka 'The Black Eye').

The main reason is that I regularly need a change of pace. I quickly get bored playing the same kind of system and character all the time. I'm playing D&D mostly because I love the tactical combat system it offers. In Earthdawn, our group's focus is on exploring the world and ourselves in the face of the horrors that lurk in dark places. Making hard moral choices is inevitable. DSA is mostly a fun romp. While the system is highly detailed, the adventure modules are often quite rail-roady, and the general feeling is that you cannot ever fail. So, it's all about role-playing your character to the hilt.

Systems I tried and didn't like were MERP & Rolemaster, because the table-driven approach just. doesn't. work. These systems are unplayable without extensive app-support. Another system that I consider a failure is Shadowrun. I really love the setting (especially since it's a continuation of Earthdawn) but the rules are way too fiddly and you're rolling tons of dice to determine results. Also, it's really hard to GM because you're basically playing in three different worlds at the same time: In the real world, the astral space, and the matrix.

Since scheduling a session has become quite tricky, we typically met about once a month in each of the three campaigns.

I don't think I've ever confused rules between systems; at least for the three systems I've been playing at the same time, they're simply too different from each other.

 

[steenan]

While I played a lot of fantasy games, I wouldn't want to return to most of them (at least for the games themselves - only a few were bad enough that I wouldn't play them even if it was the only opportunity to play with a fun group).

Anyway, there are some fantasy games that I played recently and will most probably play in the future - Exalted, Dungeon World, Strike! and Mouse Guard (although the last one isn't "sword and sorcery" - there is no magic).

The play style is very different in each of these and that's the main reason for playing all of them instead of focusing on one. If two games offer the same play style, one is typically better than the other; when they are different, one can't easily replace the other. The games being significantly different also prevent confusion between their rules.

I definitely need variety in my roleplaying. I'm typically playing or running a campaign and mixing it with one-shots using other games (not only of fantasy genre). I feel burned out if I focus on one game only for a long time.

Exalted is high powered and over-the-top. It works well for large scale, epic stories and for intense interpersonal arcs. Because of that, it requires some planning in world building and NPC creation, but also leaves a lot of freedom in players' hands - trying to railroad exalts would get absurd fast.

Mouse Guard sits on the other end of the spectrum. It's very small-scale, it focuses on basic survival, small communities and heroism despite being small and weak. It's also significantly more GM-driven.

Dungeon World is a fast game with minimal adventure prep and very simple character creation (both can be done in about 15 minutes). The rules are simple and straightforward, but they really guide both players and GM. The game focuses on typical D&D themes (wilderness exploration, dungeon crawling) and is strongly player-driven; the random factors also play bigger role in shaping the story than in the previous two games.

Strike! offers the most fun tactical combat among the four and that is why I perceive it as most combat-focused (it's less combat focused than D&D, for example, but the combat is too fun to avoid it). It is also, at lest the way we play it, at least somewhat humorous. The game engine gives very nice support for playing specific story archetypes (inexperienced protagonist, wise mentor, charitable healer etc.) and decouples them from areas of competence (classes/backgrounds) which allows for some fun combinations.

 

[dco]

Some systems:

Fantasy Hero: it's very good with low level magic settings because you have to customize the magic system. The system works with 3D6 and it has lots of maneuvers and skills, there are no classes or lvls, you pick what you find interesting for your character. Good at the beginning with slow progresion.

Savage worlds: its relatively fast but crunchy, easy to make characters and run with NPCs, there are no classes, you pick the abilities and skills you want. At the beginning you are a capable character, slow progression from there. Your abilities can be d4 d6 d8 d10 d12 and bonuses minuses, PCs use another d6 die and pick the highest, they are heroes after all.

Rolemaster 2/MERP: Lots of tables but its is funny, 1-20+lvls, lists of spells but you can avoid them, a good hit could be a critical and kill you. Slow to setup, it's boring to make your character. D100 and open rolls, you roll again with 96-100 or 01-04, the more the better, static maneuvers need 101 (an inverse porcentage, if you have a 40 in a skill instead of less than 40 you need to roll 61).

WFRP/WFRP2: You start in one basic profession, like rat catcher, when you end it you can enter another profession if you found a teacher or job. Different kinds of magic and there are active parrys. D100 and percentage. You could change professions and acoid the backg

Elric: Our master picked some Conan comics and made some adventures with this system. D100 percentage based, like Cthulhu, but you could have more than 100% with a weapon and divide between attacks, I don't remember but it was fun.

True 20: D&D done well if you avoid the magic system.

AGoT D20: It can work without mage characters, the system is D20 without magic and more lethal, one hit can let you unconscious.

 

[aramis erak]

Rolemaster expects (and supports) levels 1-50 fully; most spell lists have level 50 spells. (A few have higher level spells, too.)

WFRP3 is similar progression, but very different mechanics to WFRP 1 & 2.

Having looked at Zweihander... it's a bit grittier than WFRP1, because you don't get as near-supernatural levels of competent...