Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4323763" data-attributes="member: 42582">These two questions are slightly at odds, because they generate a presupposition which is quite contestable, namely, that a necessary condition of being superior to D&amp;D is being able to do everything that D&amp;D does.My most-played, and close-to-favourite, fantasy RPG is Rolemaster. It doesn't do everything that D&amp;D does - for example, lacking an ablative hit point mechanic it does not make it possible to have the sort of gonzo combats that typify D&amp;D - but I believe that Rolemaster Classic (the most recent version released by ICE, which is actually a tidying up of RM2) is a superior game to either version of AD&amp;D, and probably to 3E D&amp;D also. I think RQ is also superior to AD&amp;D, and not less playable than 3E.HARP is actually very different from RM, both in the balance of character build (because of the very different double-development rules) and in spell casting (because of the scaling penalties, which are the main balancing mechanic for spell casting). Also because it has Fate Points as a core mechanic and purely metagame XP rules, whereas RM has not metagame mechanics and awards XPs on an ingame rather than a metagame logic.Perhaps not quite as different from RM as 4e is from 3E - but 4e clearly also has its roots in classic D&amp;D. The weapon list, many of the spell names, the classes and races, combat involving d20 to hit + hit points of damage - these are all classic D&amp;Disms.And to the OP: I'm glad that 4e is basically a new game that just borrows the D&amp;D brand and some tropes, as it means I might actually have a well-supported AND playable fantasy RPG.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4323763, member: 42582"] These two questions are slightly at odds, because they generate a presupposition which is quite contestable, namely, that a necessary condition of being superior to D&D is being able to do everything that D&D does. My most-played, and close-to-favourite, fantasy RPG is Rolemaster. It doesn't do everything that D&D does - for example, lacking an ablative hit point mechanic it does not make it possible to have the sort of gonzo combats that typify D&D - but I believe that Rolemaster Classic (the most recent version released by ICE, which is actually a tidying up of RM2) is a superior game to either version of AD&D, and probably to 3E D&D also. I think RQ is also superior to AD&D, and not less playable than 3E. HARP is actually very different from RM, both in the balance of character build (because of the very different double-development rules) and in spell casting (because of the scaling penalties, which are the main balancing mechanic for spell casting). Also because it has Fate Points as a core mechanic and purely metagame XP rules, whereas RM has not metagame mechanics and awards XPs on an ingame rather than a metagame logic. Perhaps not quite as different from RM as 4e is from 3E - but 4e clearly also has its roots in classic D&D. The weapon list, many of the spell names, the classes and races, combat involving d20 to hit + hit points of damage - these are all classic D&Disms. And to the OP: I'm glad that 4e is basically a new game that just borrows the D&D brand and some tropes, as it means I might actually have a well-supported AND playable fantasy RPG. [/QUOTE]

Verification