NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6800644" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think that's a little harsh. I've GMed a lot of Rolemaster, and have more than passing experience with RQ and its cousins (Stormbringer etc) and Classic Traveller.These systems have their challenges, as I'm the first to admit, but also their elegant beauty. (Especially RQ.) They're not intended to be OOtS-style lampoons, and I think at their best are not. (I've seen many argue for OOtS-lampoon-style 3E, especially when it comes to hit points, but the classic process-sim games avoid many of the mechanical elements, especially D&D-style level-based scaling, that underpin the OOtS's jokes.)BW is in many respects quite baroque, although - like 4e - its core engine is quite simple.I think Dan Davenport got BW right in the tagline to his <a href="http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12746.phtml" target="_blank">RPG.net review </a>of it:If you've ever wanted to combine the powerful emotions and epic grandeur of Lord of the Rings with the brutally detailed combat of RuneQuest, then boy, do I have the game for you!He closes the review with a similar remark:If you want Tolkien-style fantasy with hyper-detailed combat that emulates the implied brutality at Helm’s Deep while leaving room for individual heroes to survive and excel, you really can’t do better. I'd add that I also think it's not bad for swords-and-sorcery. It can model practically every ripple of your barbarian's might thews, while preserving the aggressive protagonism that is at the heart of REH's Conan stories.</blockquote>

Verification