If you could choose only one...
- Thread starter jdrakeh
- Start date
Teflon Billy
Explorer
Of those presented (and although I like Ars Magica best of them), I would pick BRP.
BRP (in the form of Worlds of Wonder) was the first real attempt I'd ever seen at a "toolkit" system, and it worked well.
Magic World and Future World from Worlds of Wonder are still very playable RPGs. Holding up decently 20 years on is a pretty good acid test for a system's utility if you ask me.
BRP (in the form of Worlds of Wonder) was the first real attempt I'd ever seen at a "toolkit" system, and it worked well.
Magic World and Future World from Worlds of Wonder are still very playable RPGs. Holding up decently 20 years on is a pretty good acid test for a system's utility if you ask me.
Well, it seems to me to be a highly pointless and arbitrary poll, and the real answer is that I have about another half-dozen or so fantasy RPG systems sitting on my bookshelves that I would use before I'd use any of the above. But, since you put a (metaphorical) gun to my head, I chose Ars Magica, because I don't know anything about it and it might turn out to be a fun and rewarding game to play. BRP is too limited in its presentation for my tastes (I don't dislike the system, as such, but I'd need to do so much work on it that it's easier to just not bother). Both of the older D&D systems are, well, older D&D systems and thus riddled with flaws. And finally, C&C seems to me to be a way of reintroducing all those old flaws back into 3.x -- no thank you!
Old Fezziwig
this is a low-flying panic attack
I'd have to go with D&D (basic/expert) mostly because it's the one I'm most familiar with, and, although I love Ars Magica 5, it seems to me that Ars Magica is best at doing Ars Magica. I mean, there's an implied D&D setting and style, too, but I think it can have broader application than the Ars Magica style can. Of course, I could be wrong about that, but trying to do a more standard fantasy game with AM seems like it'd be using the wrong tool for the job.
Henry
Autoexreginated
I'd go with Castles and Crusades, because it gives me the feel of D&D, but the most important conveniences of 3E.
BRP is pretty good (never saw worlds of wonder, just Runequest and CoC) but it would be my second choice. In no chance would I choose Ars Magica, because it's great for "Wizard-based" fantasy, but fighter and thief-types are by necessity marginalized in it. (Maybe this has changed for the newer editions, I'm basing this off of older versions.)
OD&D? Possibly, but there's too little for me to hang my hat on, if truth be told. I'm all for creativity, but there's so much that needs creating there, that I might as well make my own, and base it around a d20.
BRP is pretty good (never saw worlds of wonder, just Runequest and CoC) but it would be my second choice. In no chance would I choose Ars Magica, because it's great for "Wizard-based" fantasy, but fighter and thief-types are by necessity marginalized in it. (Maybe this has changed for the newer editions, I'm basing this off of older versions.)
OD&D? Possibly, but there's too little for me to hang my hat on, if truth be told. I'm all for creativity, but there's so much that needs creating there, that I might as well make my own, and base it around a d20.
DragonLancer
Hero
D&D Basic/Expert.
Of the five listed its the only one I have had experience with, plus I really miss the basic simple fantasy rules.
Of the five listed its the only one I have had experience with, plus I really miss the basic simple fantasy rules.
Shemeska
Adventurer
I need a none option here 
Or, barring that I pick from the list at random, and then do what I usually tend to do, but carry it to an extreme: have a game in spite of the rules as written, and in this case just ignore the rules as much as humanly possible.
Never played Ars Magica, never heard of the next one, never played C&C, OD&D was published before I was born, and possibly the last one as well too. I've either got no experience in running with them (Ars Magica etc), or absolutely no desire to run with them given the style of game they tend to be focused towards supporting (w/ regards to the ultra early DnD editions, and their latter day clones).
Or, barring that I pick from the list at random, and then do what I usually tend to do, but carry it to an extreme: have a game in spite of the rules as written, and in this case just ignore the rules as much as humanly possible.
Never played Ars Magica, never heard of the next one, never played C&C, OD&D was published before I was born, and possibly the last one as well too. I've either got no experience in running with them (Ars Magica etc), or absolutely no desire to run with them given the style of game they tend to be focused towards supporting (w/ regards to the ultra early DnD editions, and their latter day clones).
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
I voted C&C, but almost went with D&D (Basic/Expert) for nostalgia.
Aust Diamondew
First Post
Original D&D. It's the system I like best of the ones up their. Ofc if you'd let me heavily houserule C&C back to 3.0/3.5 then I'll go with that 
On the other hand if I had the option to not play any of those and just build my own system that could be fun I could take the best and most compatible elements of everything.
On the other hand if I had the option to not play any of those and just build my own system that could be fun I could take the best and most compatible elements of everything.
Wombat
First Post
I'd definitely go Ars Magica (I mean, duh, look at my sig line...), but probably for different reasons than might be imagined.
I like BRP a lot, but I have always disliked the magic system. Other than that, it is a great, useful, and flexible system. It would become my "fallback" system in this lot.
D&D is, well, D&D -- fine for what it does, but it doesn't really map any fantasy setting that I know of other than D&D. C&C is pretty much D&DLite, so more or less the same problem.
As for AM...
I am busy working on extensive notes for Regency Magica, putting AM into the world of Jonathan Strang & Mr Norrell, along with dashes of Walpole, Radcliffe, Byron, and Patrick O'Brian. Also, due to recently supplments with the concept of the Mythic Companion, it is possible to expand the world so it is less magocentric and quite heroic. I have a friend who is mapping out Ars Atlantis and we have both played around with other settings. AM is better at depicting the kinds of fantasy setting I prefer -- there is magic, and it can be powerful, but it is also rare, many people do not trust it, the notion that people have not only great abilities, but also deep foibles, etc. Yeah, I like this system.
Ultimately, however, I favour it simply because I am terribly comfortable with the system after years of playing.
I like BRP a lot, but I have always disliked the magic system. Other than that, it is a great, useful, and flexible system. It would become my "fallback" system in this lot.
D&D is, well, D&D -- fine for what it does, but it doesn't really map any fantasy setting that I know of other than D&D. C&C is pretty much D&DLite, so more or less the same problem.
As for AM...
I am busy working on extensive notes for Regency Magica, putting AM into the world of Jonathan Strang & Mr Norrell, along with dashes of Walpole, Radcliffe, Byron, and Patrick O'Brian. Also, due to recently supplments with the concept of the Mythic Companion, it is possible to expand the world so it is less magocentric and quite heroic. I have a friend who is mapping out Ars Atlantis and we have both played around with other settings. AM is better at depicting the kinds of fantasy setting I prefer -- there is magic, and it can be powerful, but it is also rare, many people do not trust it, the notion that people have not only great abilities, but also deep foibles, etc. Yeah, I like this system.
Ultimately, however, I favour it simply because I am terribly comfortable with the system after years of playing.
Similar Threads
- Poll
