Low Fantasy RPG?

Mantriel said:

The Burning Wheel, Savage Worlds and Gurps eludes me. I've read everything I could on them and although I see the value, I'm not really convinced.

But Mouse Guard I will have to try one-day, hopefully as a player, not a DM/GM.

Click to expand...

I own all three rules sets (Burning Wheel, Savage Worlds, GURPS), and have actively played GURPS and Savage. If none of those three are floating your boat, I'm not sure what to add at this point.

Savage Worlds would fantastically emulate what @gamerprinter talked about if you used the Beasts and Barbarians campaign setting. But Savage Worlds is admittedly (and purposefully) not extremely "crunch heavy." It's definitely rules-medium, or a step down in terms of rules complexity from D&D 3.x / PF, and probably a step and a half down in complexity from GURPS. Savage is perfect if you're interested in fast combats, with some fun, streamlined tactical gameplay (though not nearly as in-depth as D&D 3 or 4). Out of combat it supports a more "free-wheeling," improvisational style where your players can "go off the rails" in terms of trying fun stuff in-game. If this is what you're looking for, Savage Worlds is the perfect fit. And frankly, in spite of there being meta-game and gamist artifacts poking up all over the place, it actually feels more "simulationist" in play than D&D. But if you're looking for "hard," detailed, crunchy combats using multiple subsystems, it's definitely not the right fit.

GURPS takes hard, detailed, crunchy combat to the next level. GURPS and Runequest are generally regarded among the most detailed, "realistic" RPG combat systems, though I personally have never really cared for GURPS' overall style and vibe.

I can't comment on HERO, having never read or played it, though from most of what I've heard, HERO and GURPS bear a number of similarities. If the general vibe of GURPS isn't working for you, then I don't know that HERO will be what you're looking for either. @Dannyalcatraz might be your best resource for getting info on HERO.

Burning Wheel is crunchy, but the crunch serves a totally different purpose than GURPS. It's trying to generate a character "narrative" tone, and not necessarily provide crunchy combat. Its combat system is more abstract, though I've only read through the rules and haven't seen it in play.

If none of those three seem to feel right for what you're looking for, I'd probably suggest looking at Runequest, Harnmaster, or EABA ("End All, Be All"). A low-level game of True20, or the D&D 3.x "E6" variant might also work.

Mantriel said:

I disagree, Middle earth is full with orcs, hobbits, wizards, ghosts, huge flame demons (what's his name...)... what is Low about that? It is the quintessential High fantasy. . .

Click to expand...

Have you read the Two Towers? Or failing that, seen the beginning of the Two Towers? This is Tolkien's low-fantasy: pages and pages of chasing across a vast landscape, not a Balrog to be seen. Nor troll, nor Tom Bombadil. Yes, pretty subjective, but given the -average- amount of magic going around in Middle Earth, I'd call it low fantasy.

DMMike said:

Have you read the Two Towers? Or failing that, seen the beginning of the Two Towers? This is Tolkien's low-fantasy: pages and pages of chasing across a vast landscape, not a Balrog to be seen. Nor troll, nor Tom Bombadil. Yes, pretty subjective, but given the -average- amount of magic going around in Middle Earth, I'd call it low fantasy.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense to me, but I respect that you see it differently.

innerdude said:

GURPS takes hard, detailed, crunchy combat to the next level. GURPS and Runequest are generally regarded among the most detailed, "realistic" RPG combat systems, though I personally have never really cared for GURPS' overall style and vibe.

I can't comment on HERO, having never read or played it, though from most of what I've heard, HERO and GURPS bear a number of similarities. If the general vibe of GURPS isn't working for you, then I don't know that HERO will be what you're looking for either. @Dannyalcatraz might be your best resource for getting info on HERO.

Click to expand...

GURPS and HERO are both toolbox systems, but they start at different ends of the spectrum of simulation.

GURPS starts from the grim & gritty "realistic" side, and can be ramped up to cover all kinds of things like super heroics and high-fantasy. In contrast, HERO starts from the viewpoint of simulating superheroes, and can be scaled down to cover everything else.

So, even though I vastly prefer HERO to GURPS in general, I think GURPS is a better fit for low fantasy. At least from the standpoint of running the game out of the box, anyway.

DMMike said:

Have you read the Two Towers? Or failing that, seen the beginning of the Two Towers? This is Tolkien's low-fantasy: pages and pages of chasing across a vast landscape, not a Balrog to be seen. Nor troll, nor Tom Bombadil. Yes, pretty subjective, but given the -average- amount of magic going around in Middle Earth, I'd call it low fantasy.

Click to expand...

Mantriel said:

That doesn't make any sense to me, but I respect that you see it differently.

Click to expand...

It's worth mentioning that the wizards of Middle Earth are more akin to angelic/divine beings. Even then, the amount of magic used by a character like Gandalf is somewhat minimal for the most part. To put it another way... a ring which causes the wearer to be invisible is a major magic item in the setting. In a D&D setting, that same ring would likely be a common item purchased from a shop in town.

It's been quite a while since I've read The Hobbit, but I believe it literally took an army to combat Smaug. He was able to ravage an entire town by himself. Arguably, the only reason he was able to be defeated was due to Bard being an exceptional archer; Bard having knowledge of a specific weakness, and then also having possession of a special arrow on top of all of that. By comparison; in a D&D campaign, Smaug would have been easily defeated by an adventuring party of 4-5 PCs.

To be fair, what works in a novel and what works in a rpg aren't always the same. Things often need to work differently to better fit different mediums. Still, I do think it's reasonable to argue that Middle Earth is closer to low fantasy than a lot of the other things I'm familiar with. Tolkier is still far more 'high fantasy' than the gritty writing style of R. Howard (which I personally love,) but Tolkien's writing is (in my opinion) a bit more grounded than a lot of other things. Though, to be completely honest, I'm a bit behind the times when it comes to reading more modern fantasy, and I'm willing to accept that my opinion might change upon *reading other materials.


*I'm open to suggestions for things to read. I could certainly use some new books on my shelf.

Johnny3D3D said:

It's worth mentioning that the wizards of Middle Earth are more akin to angelic/divine beings.

To be fair, what works in a novel and what works in a rpg aren't always the same.

*I'm open to suggestions for things to read. I could certainly use some new books on my shelf.

Click to expand...

It's also worth mentioning that you should read the first three Song of Ice and Fire books as of, oh, yesterday.

And that the free game I'm writing, Modos RPG, uses minimal, flexible rules which might actually help it conform to what works in a novel. And it doesn't use classes, so there's no magic hard-wired into the system (unless you want it there). I don't think it's up Mantriel's alley though - not crunchy enough.

DMMike said:

It's also worth mentioning that you should read the first three Song of Ice and Fire books as of, oh, yesterday.

Click to expand...

I understand the need for you to advertise your upcoming RPG product, but with all honesty I have no idea why you try to convince me that the books you like are low fantasy.

There are dragons in the Game of Thrones, mystical magic, raising the dead, elemental control, several fantasy beasts...
That is not low fantasy, it is a high fantasy world, with many low fantasy elements.

Again, the definition of ‘low fantasy’ as opposed to ‘high fantasy’ is centred around whether the world is based off the real world (low fantasy) or a secondary invented world (high fantasy). The terms are loose, but both Westeros and Middle Earth are invented secondary worlds, which makes both of them High fantasy.

Some confusion may arise over referring to the degree of magic available or apparent ‘grittiness’ in the worlds detailed, which is the debate on this thread, along with looking into the backstory of the worlds. There are people, for example, who argue that Middle Earth is a mythical past of our own real world which becomes more low fantasy. Note that the presence of magic is largely what defines fantasy generally, and even in invented worlds it can be subtle, so again this leads to some blurring. For me, however, low fantasy is basically historical based and not taking place in an invented world.

And RuneQuest is still king. Even though Glorantha is High.

Mantriel said:

There are dragons in the Game of Thrones, mystical magic, raising the dead, elemental control, several fantasy beasts...
That is not low fantasy, it is a high fantasy world, with many low fantasy elements.

Click to expand...

Umm, no. It's a low fantasy world with a few high fantasy elements.
I have only read the first three books, but the magical elements are almost purely window dressing. E.g. there's a whopping total of _three_ dragons in the entire world, and they're just hatchlings. Magic isn't central to the setting, it's all but forgotten. The story would work just as well if there was no magic at all and if it was set in medieval Europe.

TrippyHippy said:

Again, the definition of ‘low fantasy’ as opposed to ‘high fantasy’ is centred around whether the world is based off the real world (low fantasy) or a secondary invented world (high fantasy).

Note that the presence of magic is largely what defines fantasy generally, and even in invented worlds it can be subtle, so again this leads to some blurring. For me, however, low fantasy is basically historical based and not taking place in an invented world.

Click to expand...

Does "for me" indicate that the definition is yours, or is it more official? Because I thought that fiction about worlds based off the real world was just called "fiction." "Fantasy" is a different beast.