What Lost, Abandoned or Short Lived TTRPG would you like to see get a re-issue and new support?

I’d love a cleaned up OSE style treatment for original D&D to have a revival.

I know there are things out there like that already. But it’d be cool if the game as it was, simpler and with gaps and all, I’d like that. H*ck I’d run it without initiative more like Daggerheart spotlight.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Though it came out before, does MasterBook make any appreciable changes to TORG and Shatterzone? I thought MasterBook was just the generic name for the system that was already created?

There were some non-trivial differences between Masterbook and TORG at least. As I mention above, using 2D10 instead of a D20 just as one I remember off the top (and that mattered more for these games because of how the dice interacted with success than a lot of games).
 

Huh. Thought it was Masterbook from my casual readthrough. It was pretty far along toward it at least (used the 2D10 instead of D20 at least as I recall).
Though it came out before, does MasterBook make any appreciable changes to TORG and Shatterzone? I thought MasterBook was just the generic name for the system that was already created?
It's pretty close, but the numbers/difficulties are different. The current MasterDeck cards will work with either, but the original cards were also slightly different. MasterBook was derived from it. Shatterzone is much closer to MasterBook than TORG is. I've been working on a second edition of MasterBook for some time now. The current classic reprint comes with the 2e public playtest rules: [Precis Intermedia Link] [DriveThruRPG Link]
 

There were some non-trivial differences between Masterbook and TORG at least. As I mention above, using 2D10 instead of a D20 just as one I remember off the top (and that mattered more for these games because of how the dice interacted with success than a lot of games).
The biggest difference for the 2D10 beyond the curve is that a roll again adds a third die (or possibly more dice). Yes, the foundation for most of MasterBook was in the Shatterzone system. The rest came with more options and the effects system.
 

Neither quite captures the feel of the Palladium one, and I usually dump on them, but I still have fond memories of playing that one.
Interesting... How would you describe the feel the old one had for you, and what about it do you figure contributed to that feel that the new ones aren't doing?
 

Interesting... How would you describe the feel the old one had for you, and what about it do you figure contributed to that feel that the new ones aren't doing?
So the SWADE one goes very tactical in its presentation of mecha, and gives very little in the way of background (which is my primary draw) and goes all in on the subsystems, trying to stat them up, and give them very precise parameters. The layout is also horrendous, which makes reading it a chore. I haven't actually taken it to the table, because I'm not sure I'd want to, which is a disappointment.

In contrast, the Strange Machine Games one is more narrative, but it tries to fuse an overlay in combat to give more tactical options, and it just becomes a bewildering melange. The background is better here, as is the layout and presentation. I have tried it, but the players got the same feel.

An example of how it sort of makes unforced errors - skill checks are called challenges - either basic (automatic), static, or combat (which can also be static, if the GM wants to make it player facing). The combat in no way mentions the rolls as challenges. It took me a while to equate the two, as they are in separate chapters, and the nomenclature describing the combat is very vague on specifics, even though it has copious examples. Add to that, they use ranges and attack types (AOE and such), but it's all presented as ToTM. And don't get me started on Space vs non-space combat, as they use two different scales, and the only hint to the GM is "The GM might have to do some creative interpolation to get movement rates to work properly. They’re encouraged to make stuff up as needed to help the game run smoothly. The most important thing is that vehicles move appropriately in relation to each other." and "Ultimately, the exact distances used don’t matter much. What matters is that the vehicles move the proper distances in relation to each other. The GM should feel free to modify distances or speeds to suit their play style or the group’s needs." Those are direct quotes. You can't have it both ways and expect not to confuse your audience, IMO.

In contrast, for all that I dislike about the Palladium system (and my complaints are many), they do work and aren't confusing to implement, if you take it for what it is. The system gets out of the way, and you can have fun jockeying around with your Veritechs, and just not sweating the details. For a fast moving game like Robotech is supposed to be, you need this, IMO.

I still get the SMG stuff- it's great for background and fluff. But the system just was a bit much as it stood, and if I was going to run it, I'd probably just use Fate Condensed or Accelerated.
 


Though it came out before, does MasterBook make any appreciable changes to TORG and Shatterzone? I thought MasterBook was just the generic name for the system that was already created?
Others have already mentioned using 2d10 instead of 1d20 in Masterbook. Some other changes are, off the top of my head:
  • Dexterity split into Dexterity (hand-eye coordination) and Agility (full-body coordination). I think Spirit might have been renamed as well but I could be misremembering.
  • Instead of adding your bonus number to damage, you add your result points (margin of success). On one hand, this solves the glass ninja problem (TORG was kind of infamous for hard-to-hit characters getting absolutely splattered if actually hit, because the lucky roll needed translated to huge damage), but on the other hand it makes Agility a much stronger stat than Toughness (since more agility = less damage taken because both Unarmed/Melee combat and Dodge are based on that).
  • Some recalibration of cards to mostly give +2 instead of +3.
  • Since there is no distinction between Possibility-rated characters and "Ords", there is only one damage table that's somewhere between the two in TORG.
  • Introduction of an advantage/disadvantage system. Both advantages and disadvantages are rated on a 1-4 scale, and they have to match one-for-one (so if you have a level 3 advantage you need to have a level 3 disadvantage, you can't use a 2 and a 1). Different races have different numbers of ads/disads they can take, so one race might have 3 1s and 2 2s and another might have one each of 1, 2, 3, and 4.
  • All sorts of FX abilities (magic, psionics, miracles, weird science) use the same system, with it being up to the GM to specify any limitations. There's also a system in the core book for creating FX, and as I recall it was entirely deterministic rather than subject to rolls the way the Aysle spell creation rules are.
 

Remove ads

Top