Games You'd Like to See Make a Comeback

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
In my opinion, if ICE/Guild Companion are not going with the more slim approach of HARP (which still isn't anything near rules-lite by contemporary standards), then it makes sense to go back to use Rolemaster 2nd edition (RM2) as a foundation.

I remember things went down a different path with the third (RMSS) and fourth editions (RMFP), but I think 5th edition (RMC) was more along RM2 lines, I remember reading a lot of the fans were happier with the approach that RMC took.

I find it hard to keep up, I know that RM Express was published, I'm not sure if that was a basic version of the RM2/RMC line or the RMSS/RMFP line.

My mate tells me that from what he read RM Unified (currently in project) was initially an attempt to combine both lines of RM, but I think the general consensus was that the RM2 line has been more favoured, which supporrts what was said by the previous poster.

Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand I would prefer a much cleaner version of the system, but on the other hand this may not be a system aimed at me or aimed at getting new fans. If that is the case, then marketing it towards the older fanbase using the classic era rules does make sense.

As a collector I might grab it out of nostalgia, but as a GM I found RM much more cumbersome to run than RQ back in the 1980s. These days I don't mind HARP, but as a GM I still think I would prefer to run any version of BRP over any of the ICE systems, unless rules/table bloat is dramatically culled (which sounds like it is unlikely thev case). However as a player I'm happy to play a character either in RM or HARP; combat is not quick, but it can be a lot of fun.

For me RM was a much better game to play than AD&D, which it was competing with back then. AD&D was quite a clumsy game with alot of rules inconsistencies, so many rpgs presented viable alternatives, with RM being one of the most popular options.

D&D remains the biggest name in the industry, however I'm unsure how a new version of RM will measure up to D&D 5E. In many ways the D&D line adapted some ideas from RM (Monte Cook acknowledged this when he was doing D&D 3E). Not sure if RM will grab alot of new customers away from D&D these days, but it may catch the attention of some of the older ones.

I think bringing back a lot of the RM classic era artwork will play just a bit as role in whether older fans buy it or not, not just mechanics.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to see a Runequest/Mythras version of this. I seem to recall Mark Smylie quoting Runequest as an influence and I think it's a travesty that the RPG version we got is powered by FUDGE (or was it FATE)?
Artesia = BRP (RuneQuest or Mythras)
Perfect match.Yep, a no brainer!
 
Last edited:
A generic system collector? Fascinating. I'm in love with the idea of generic systems, but systems married to a setting (even an idiosyncratic implied one like D&D or Traveller) hold a certain appeal to me. Though the mental exercise of framing a movie scene into a game system is probably something we've all done!
Yes for some reason I've always loved comparing mechanics and seeing the process of how a game engine portrays the gaming world. Some systems are so imbeded into the setting that you pretty much have to run them with the setting, such as World of Darkness, for instance. However for the most part a lot of systems are not always as good as the settings, and for these I tend to use my core systems and adapt them to the settings.

For a game where I want to portray the setting objectively I tend to use a BRP system, it's great for gritty combat and such. So running a Hyborian Age game, or Fallout or something like that. For games that I place the fictional flavour over 'realism' then I tend to go with FATE Core (or FAE) these days, as there's no overlap with how these systems portray the game world. I tend to use FATE for stuff like Pulp Adventure, Contemporary Action Flick, and if doing a fantasy then I would use it for Fable-like settings like 'Robin Hood' or 'Brothers Grimm Tales' etc.

However just because I have favourites doesn't mean I don't play or stop collecting other systems. It's so bloody addictive! At present my latest is Cypher System, it's not too bad.
 
Isn't it an ill-advised Interlock/Hero hybrid?
Basically. But I think "ill-advised" is a bad descriptor, pushing forth preconceived notions. Though I can't read your mind, and know your experiences with it. So I suppose I don't know if that's true.
 
I had a copy of the Fuzion generic rulebook at one point, and it just seemed like an utterly generic GURPS-alike. I don't know much about Interlock or Hero, though. What was the context for all the fuss over it?
 
Basically. But I think "ill-advised" is a bad descriptor, pushing forth preconceived notions. Though I can't read your mind, and know your experiences with it. So I suppose I don't know if that's true.

Never did play it. It just felt like, to paraphrase Rick & Morty, Hero with extra steps.

And Heaven knows Hero don’t need no extra steps.
 
Personally I preferred the system that ICE presented in HARP Fantasy, it was much more slimline, yet was easily recognisable as a descendant of Rolemaster.
We ran with HARP for awhile. It went well at first, but we became dissatisfied with it after awhile. We went back to RM Classic, and it was such a relief after several years of RMSS. We'd forgotten how streamlined it was.

Rolemaster had a great high fantasy setting with Shadow World, it seemed to have more appeal than HARP's Cyradon setting. Cyradon felt like 'High Fantasy mixed with Vanilla Sorcery' which kinda mirrored Ebberon, which D&D 3E was running at that time. It's a bit weird, as I think both systems were probably better with straight High Fantasy (D&D with Forgotten Realms and Rolemaster with Shadow World).

Cyradon was just rather bland. Especially in comparison to the gonzo, everything-including-the-kitchen-sink approach of Shadow World in which I ran a campaign for years.
 
I know nothing about these two! Care to elaborate? :smile:
Regarding CORPS and EABA. Probably more than you want to know...but here goes:

Both are by the Blacksburg Tactical Research Center (BTRC). And by BTRC I mean Greg Porter. Both are universal systems. CORPS was released originally in 1990 as the "Conspiracy Oriented RolePlaying System" (CORPS). It was specifically a modern-day RPG centered around a web of conspiracies and secret organizations (Illuminati, aliens, etc. etc.) It was a nice, crisp system. Later, in 1998, it was re-worked into the "Complete Omniversal Roleplaying System" and released as a true universal system. It's written in a no-nonsense but elegant style that provides all the information you need. I don't think I ever needed to know anything that I couldn't find somewhere in the rules (table of contents AND useful index.) He presents this in under 150 pages.

CORPS is still geared more toward realism (and actually fact-checks really well.) It can handle up to what most systems would consider high-street-level supers. It has a nice, simple power framework system that can duplicate most powers I ever came across, although the GM has to keep an eye on it. Stats range from 1-10 or maybe a smidge higher. Skills can range also up to 10-12 in extremes. The effect of high stats is to provide an increasing discount to purchasing skills and to act as a cap on buying high skills.

The base mechanic is very quick. The GM assigns a difficulty to a task. If the character's skill is equal to or higher than the difficulty, no roll is required...he just succeeds at the task. If the difficulty is higher than the skill, then a d10 is rolled. If the difficulty is 1 higher than the skill, you need to roll a 9 or less. If it's 2 higher you need to roll a 7 or less. 3 higher you need 5 or less. 4 higher you need 3 or less. 5 higher and you have to roll a 1 to succeed. (There is an optional rule for open-ended rolls.) The rules as a whole use this approach, both for CORPS and EABA. The basic rules are provided, and then optional, more advanced rules if you wish to incorporate them. There are a number of good settings available, including TImeLords.

CORPS was replaced in 2003 by EABA, and although CORPS is still available in PDF, it's no longer supported. Which is a shame, because it remains my favorite.

EABA ("End All Be All") is geared more toward cinematic level action, and although the powers don't approach those of DC or Marvel's top guns, they're more powerful than CORPS. The basic mechanic for EABA uses d6s. Stats and skills add together to provide a total such as 3d6+2, 4d6, 6d6+1, etc. (Whenever the +x modifier would go to 3, it adds an additional d6.) When you roll the dice you take the highest 3 and the modifier. What this means is that the highest it is ever possible to roll is 20. The effect of rolling more dice is to skew the curve upward so that you average higher totals, but that will never exceed 20. (For superpowers and special abilities you can keep more than the highest 3, but those are powerful exceptions.)

EABA tends to lose me in two areas. One is the passage of time in combat. Rounds start off at a single action, about a second. As the encounter goes on, the time period expands until each round encompasses several minutes. This is supposed to reflect how encounters start off fast and furious, and as time passes people move, chases occur, people try to evade and hide, etc. You get more action points per round as the encounter progresses to allow you to take time for greater accuracy or to take multiple actions during the longer time period. (I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, it's been awhile.) It's an interesting concept, but it just seems like a fair amount of bookkeeping. Greg does provide a nice, very detailed simulation of the lobby combat scene in 'The Matrix' as an example.

The other issue is that all powers, equipment, vehicles, etc. are all constructed using the Power system. There's a supplement called "Stuff!" dedicated to this. You can build anything from a skateboard to a starship to a civilization using Stuff!. It's a very esoteric approach.

To be fair, I had burned out around this time. Our group was pretty heavily involved in the initial playtesting, and by the time the final product had come out I really needed a change.

CORPS remained our group's favorite system, especially for anything that didn't have a system we didn't particularly care for. (It was absolutely perfect for Dark Conspiracy.) EABA has a lot going for it, and I'd like to give it a re-examination if I could find a group willing to experiment with it.
 
Last edited:
If you want something along the line of HARP, there's always Novus.

I wish Novus had come along when we were looking for a Rolemaster alternative. It looks better than HARP, and I'd like to give it a test run against RMC.
 
Y'all are wrong, RMSS is simply beter in every possible way. :grin: But, I'm not going to restart the RMSS / RM2 debate I wasted a decade on. Nope, personally they should have come clean about the copyright ownership issues immediately after the bail out / rebirth and made HARP the new edition. I say this as one who believes HARP is a failure on every level. RMfrp was a massive missed opportunity to make RMSS more appealing to the RM2 fans, there needed to be a way to make it function without skill categories or just skill categories by themselves. I can see the reasons and justifications heck I argued them to death for years with Rasyr who was the lead designer at the time. It doesn't matter now, the fan base is fractured and the new edition stands to only create another fracture though it might be more popular than RMSS which was a missed opportunity to make large and small combatants work better in their own right. My experiences with Rolemaster are basically why I only work on my own stuff and will probably never bothering to engage with an rpg company as a creator ever again.
 
I had a copy of the Fuzion generic rulebook at one point, and it just seemed like an utterly generic GURPS-alike. I don't know much about Interlock or Hero, though. What was the context for all the fuss over it?
It's two somewhat large publishers throwing things together and making it somewhat accessible -- it didn't have a free license, but in those nascent days of the internet, a distributable PDF and general leeway to do what you want with it was good enough. No C&Ds from Kevin Simbieda or putting "no sirree, definitely not D&D" stats in books.

Which meant that quite a lot of people made fan creations on their Geocities pages or whatever was used back then. I remember the Fuzion Lodoss War setting to be somewhat popular.

The commercial ramifications weren't that big, though. Cyberpunk 3 was a disaster, and Champions: The New Millennium didn't fare that much better.

About the system itself? Yes, it's a generic GURPS-alike, but as a generic base for RPGs, that's not exactly a bad thing. And it was designed to be quite modular -- you could use the Martial Arts subsystem or not, you could plug in some powers system, you could even switch basic resolution between 3d6 for those who like bell curves and 1d10 for those who like to be wrong.
There was a lite version that I'd still prefer to most current "fast & furious" type of games, and which was used rather nicely in the first Usagi Yojimbo RPG (not the IronClaw based one).

Why do some people dislike it? No idea. I know some HERO-heads who were screaming bloody murder, but that seems like a pretty small crowd. And some people dislike anything generic and/or moderately complex. Beats me.

As for Artesia: Oh boy, don't pin anything on Fuzion. There's little left from the published generic system in there. You've got attributes, you got skills, you roll, add both and compare vs. target number. That's about it, Smylie added a metric boatload of attributes, his own skills, changed combat maneuvers (in a rather interesting and minimalistic way), took armor categories from HarnMaster, added his own magic system that's very much about charms and spirit blessings etc.
 
There is no debate about which is better, RMC/2 or RMSS. Which is better depends on what works for you. For us, RMSS....just didn't in the long run. We still used it for years, and we had no problems with it from a difficulty perspective. It just had problems that were a growing irritation to us.

Artesia worked well for us, which was a surprise. It was far crunchier than the systems we were generally using at the time, but I think people got so invested in their characters using the Lifepath system that they were eager to play and were able to look past the crunch. The changes Smylie made were perfect for capturing the feel of the world as presented in the comics.
 
For the record, I was only involved in ICE rpgs from a player perspective, and these days I'm pretty hazy on the differences in the earlier editions.

RM2 was a senior high school thing, and when I caught up with that group a few years later they were using RMSS. I cannot remember too much that was different, although the GM assured me that there had been big changes.

A few years later I reconnected with that GM and he was running HARP, and even as a player it felt like a slimmer version of RM. Actually I still game with him and it looks like he wants to do another HARP Fantasy game when its his turn to GM.

So I actually dont have strong views on the RMC/2 vs RMSS/FRPG debate, except that I like the art direction of the 1980s books, they feel very classic to me, its probably a limbic system thing :-)
 
So things I love about RMSS and the things that need to change about them.

Point buy temporary stat and roll for potential. So you dumped presence but it turns out that you've got an unexpected talent for it. RMSS is often guilty of having things both ways and I love it for that even if it makes it a bit baroque.

Training packages as a life path system (I'd tweak the implementation a bit and all discounts would be represented in experience points so if you stacked too many you'd level up), Training packages as a preloaded template to speed up character creation (not a fan of the item rolls, I'd do an event roll, also, no undefined skill ranks why oh why would you put undefined ranks in a package?).

Three stats per skill, kept that in my own system it not only cuts down on stat dumping but it also means there's more than one way to be good at something. Also, not having to average bonuses.

Skill categories, I love them but would probably want to rationalize the list a little bit. I know this is a contentious issue but it actually means you don't have to refigure as much for each skill in a category and it makes the relationship between related skills clear. But I think they needed to make it so you could run with the categories, or the skills, or both depending on the detail level you wanted. All they needed to do to make this possible was ensure that the number of skill ranks in packages matched the number of category ranks. One thing I think is great about RMSS is the number of different ways skills relate to each other, through common usage (profession bonus), through common knowledge (skill category), and common fundamentals (stats).

Massive skill list. Personally I like to be able to point at my skill list and say, "I sure as hell can do that." I know I know, "the rules can't cure asshole," it must be wonderful to live in a magical world where you'll never have to deal with an asshole again ever. I also find it immersive and fun to have a detailed and varied background represented by skills.

Talents and Flaws are great, I like the RMSS model much better than GURPS really. Yes there's a few issues in there but I generally prefer character abilities over magic items. However, that picking 2 x +20 items for two background options in the basic table needs to go. +20 armor with +20 shield or +20 weapon is a bit much when you've got a first level fighter with 100+ OB and 100+ Hits.

So, here's my list of peaves! Stat gain rolls when you level up mean you can't just increase your rank bonus and be on your merry way, nope, you have to erase half the sheet every stinking level. I like the effect in game terms but it makes leveling up a real chore. Sliding scale discounts, in GM Law we learn the more a race costs the bigger the discount. WHAT! They did it to training packages later on too. As I noted above, at the very least it should be balanced by experience points. Large creature criticals. Sorry, but no, your dagger doesn't inflict more damage as the target gets bigger. Superior and inferior weapons, like broadswords simply being better than scimitars at all points or kynaks basically being a +10 dagger.
 
Buffy/Angel using Cinematic Unisystem. I love the shows and I find the system really easy to use, as player or GM.

There were a few books in the pipeline when the license expired which I'd dearly love to have - Tea and Crossbows especially, but Military Monster Squad and Encyclopedia Daemonica would likely have been very useful.
 
My re-write of RM is better than anything released, so there. :p

Golden Heroes would be my vote. Only played it a couple of times in my teens, so can't remember a huge amount, but it seemed so much simpler than anything else supers-related since. It's available as Squadron UK, i think, but a new edition would be cool.
 
I would like to see Unhallowed Metropolis come alive again. A neat setting and tons of possibilities:monster hunting in a Tesla-Punk, gasmask-chic, gothic horror post apocalypse London.

The original publisher and forums have vanished. Oh well, glad that I have my copies. I've been mining them for campaign settings in other games.
 
Regarding CORPS and EABA. Probably more than you want to know...but here goes:

Both are by the Blacksburg Tactical Research Center (BTRC). And by BTRC I mean Greg Porter. Both are universal systems. CORPS was released originally in 1990 as the "COnspiracy Related RolePlaying System" (CORPS). It was specifically a modern-day RPG centered around a web of conspiracies and secret organizations (Illuminati, aliens, etc. etc.) It was a nice, crisp system. Later, in 1998, it was re-worked into the "Complete Omniversal Roleplaying System" and released as a true universal system. It's written in a no-nonsense but elegant style that provides all the information you need. I don't think I ever needed to know anything that I couldn't find somewhere in the rules (table of contents AND useful index.) He presents this in under 150 pages.

CORPS is still geared more toward realism (and actually fact-checks really well.) It can handle up to what most systems would consider high-street-level supers. It has a nice, simple power framework system that can duplicate most powers I ever came across, although the GM has to keep an eye on it. Stats range from 1-10 or maybe a smidge higher. Skills can range also up to 10-12 in extremes. The effect of high stats is to provide an increasing discount to purchasing skills and to act as a cap on buying high skills.

The base mechanic is very quick. The GM assigns a difficulty to a task. If the character's skill is equal to or higher than the difficulty, no roll is required...he just succeeds at the task. If the difficulty is higher than the skill, then a d10 is rolled. If the difficulty is 1 higher than the skill, you need to roll a 9 or less. If it's 2 higher you need to roll a 7 or less. 3 higher you need 5 or less. 4 higher you need 3 or less. 5 higher and you have to roll a 1 to succeed. (There is an optional rule for open-ended rolls.) The rules as a whole use this approach, both for CORPS and EABA. The basic rules are provided, and then optional, more advanced rules if you wish to incorporate them. There are a number of good settings available, including TImeLords.

CORPS was replaced in 2003 by EABA, and although CORPS is still available in PDF, it's no longer supported. Which is a shame, because it remains my favorite.

EABA ("End All Be All") is geared more toward cinematic level action, and although the powers don't approach those of DC or Marvel's top guns, they're more powerful than CORPS. The basic mechanic for EABA uses d6s. Stats and skills add together to provide a total such as 3d6+2, 4d6, 6d6+1, etc. (Whenever the +x modifier would go to 3, it adds an additional d6.) When you roll the dice you take the highest 3 and the modifier. What this means is that the highest it is ever possible to roll is 20. The effect of rolling more dice is to skew the curve upward so that you average higher totals, but that will never exceed 20. (For superpowers and special abilities you can keep more than the highest 3, but those are powerful exceptions.)

EABA tends to lose me in two areas. One is the passage of time in combat. Rounds start off at a single action, about a second. As the encounter goes on, the time period expands until each round encompasses several minutes. This is supposed to reflect how encounters start off fast and furious, and as time passes people move, chases occur, people try to evade and hide, etc. You get more action points per round as the encounter progresses to allow you to take time for greater accuracy or to take multiple actions during the longer time period. (I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, it's been awhile.) It's an interesting concept, but it just seems like a fair amount of bookkeeping. Greg does provide a nice, very detailed simulation of the lobby combat scene in 'The Matrix' as an example.

The other issue is that all powers, equipment, vehicles, etc. are all constructed using the Power system. There's a supplement called "Stuff!" dedicated to this. You can build anything from a skateboard to a starship to a civilization using Stuff!. It's a very esoteric approach.

To be fair, I had burned out around this time. Our group was pretty heavily involved in the initial playtesting, and by the time the final product had come out I really needed a change.

CORPS remained our group's favorite system, especially for anything that didn't have a system we didn't particularly care for. (It was absolutely perfect for Dark Conspiracy.) EABA has a lot going for it, and I'd like to give it a re-examination if I could find a group willing to experiment with it.

I just want to say this is a great summery of both CORPS and EABA.
 
Regarding CORPS and EABA. Probably more than you want to know...but here goes:

Both are by the Blacksburg Tactical Research Center (BTRC). And by BTRC I mean Greg Porter. Both are universal systems. CORPS was released originally in 1990 as the "COnspiracy Related RolePlaying System" (CORPS). It was specifically a modern-day RPG centered around a web of conspiracies and secret organizations (Illuminati, aliens, etc. etc.) It was a nice, crisp system. Later, in 1998, it was re-worked into the "Complete Omniversal Roleplaying System" and released as a true universal system. It's written in a no-nonsense but elegant style that provides all the information you need. I don't think I ever needed to know anything that I couldn't find somewhere in the rules (table of contents AND useful index.) He presents this in under 150 pages.

CORPS is still geared more toward realism (and actually fact-checks really well.) It can handle up to what most systems would consider high-street-level supers. It has a nice, simple power framework system that can duplicate most powers I ever came across, although the GM has to keep an eye on it. Stats range from 1-10 or maybe a smidge higher. Skills can range also up to 10-12 in extremes. The effect of high stats is to provide an increasing discount to purchasing skills and to act as a cap on buying high skills.

The base mechanic is very quick. The GM assigns a difficulty to a task. If the character's skill is equal to or higher than the difficulty, no roll is required...he just succeeds at the task. If the difficulty is higher than the skill, then a d10 is rolled. If the difficulty is 1 higher than the skill, you need to roll a 9 or less. If it's 2 higher you need to roll a 7 or less. 3 higher you need 5 or less. 4 higher you need 3 or less. 5 higher and you have to roll a 1 to succeed. (There is an optional rule for open-ended rolls.) The rules as a whole use this approach, both for CORPS and EABA. The basic rules are provided, and then optional, more advanced rules if you wish to incorporate them. There are a number of good settings available, including TImeLords.

CORPS was replaced in 2003 by EABA, and although CORPS is still available in PDF, it's no longer supported. Which is a shame, because it remains my favorite.

EABA ("End All Be All") is geared more toward cinematic level action, and although the powers don't approach those of DC or Marvel's top guns, they're more powerful than CORPS. The basic mechanic for EABA uses d6s. Stats and skills add together to provide a total such as 3d6+2, 4d6, 6d6+1, etc. (Whenever the +x modifier would go to 3, it adds an additional d6.) When you roll the dice you take the highest 3 and the modifier. What this means is that the highest it is ever possible to roll is 20. The effect of rolling more dice is to skew the curve upward so that you average higher totals, but that will never exceed 20. (For superpowers and special abilities you can keep more than the highest 3, but those are powerful exceptions.)

EABA tends to lose me in two areas. One is the passage of time in combat. Rounds start off at a single action, about a second. As the encounter goes on, the time period expands until each round encompasses several minutes. This is supposed to reflect how encounters start off fast and furious, and as time passes people move, chases occur, people try to evade and hide, etc. You get more action points per round as the encounter progresses to allow you to take time for greater accuracy or to take multiple actions during the longer time period. (I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, it's been awhile.) It's an interesting concept, but it just seems like a fair amount of bookkeeping. Greg does provide a nice, very detailed simulation of the lobby combat scene in 'The Matrix' as an example.

The other issue is that all powers, equipment, vehicles, etc. are all constructed using the Power system. There's a supplement called "Stuff!" dedicated to this. You can build anything from a skateboard to a starship to a civilization using Stuff!. It's a very esoteric approach.

To be fair, I had burned out around this time. Our group was pretty heavily involved in the initial playtesting, and by the time the final product had come out I really needed a change.

CORPS remained our group's favorite system, especially for anything that didn't have a system we didn't particularly care for. (It was absolutely perfect for Dark Conspiracy.) EABA has a lot going for it, and I'd like to give it a re-examination if I could find a group willing to experiment with it.
Now you have me wanting to redo Justifiers in CORPS
 
I've said it once and I'll say it again.

If the new White Wolf were to rescue Big Eyes Small Mouth and release a fully supported Fourth Edition of it, I'd forgive Martin Ericsson for royally fucking up Vampire: The Masquerade 5th Edition.
 
I've said it once and I'll say it again.

If the new White Wolf were to rescue Big Eyes Small Mouth and release a fully supported Fourth Edition of it, I'd forgive Martin Ericsson for royally fucking up Vampire: The Masquerade 5th Edition.


There was a fifth edition? I thought there was only first, second, and revised. And then that 20th Anniversary collection.
 
There was a fifth edition? I thought there was only first, second, and revised. And then that 20th Anniversary collection.

Fifth Edition is coming out early next year and the previews for it don't paint a pretty picture.
 
I'd love to see a more streamlined Earthdawn. Loved it in the 90s, but resurection attempts have hoved too close to an old system now many years too clunky (for me). I reborn effort capturing the old feel, but enabling faster play with less overhead would suit my old man needs nicely!
 
I'd love to see a more streamlined Earthdawn.
I always felt Earthdawn was waaaaay too slow in combats. A big chunk of that, IMO, was the dice chain and how easily things could shift to alter what dice were thrown AND how many throws you'd have too make when you started adding Talents. At higher Circles my Archer might have 5 or 6 Talents involved in making an attack... each using a different mix of dice.
To speed it up I think it needs to lose the dice chain and/or change how Talents work... but those are major changes to the core.
 
Fifth Edition is coming out early next year and the previews for it don't paint a pretty picture.

Actual mechanics or just standard issue internet drama and bitching and moaning?
 
I wonder if Twilight 2000 could be reborn.

I wonder if both T2k and its appeal are relics of another era.

Has anyone played it in recent years?
 
I wonder if Twilight 2000 could be reborn.

I wonder if both T2k and its appeal are relics of another era.

Has anyone played it in recent years?

Never did but once I did consider running something like it, inspired by the Jericho TV series.

Maybe the specifics of both setting and system have aged poorly, but I feel the core idea of a gritty, non-supernatural, immediate post-apocalypse has legs.
 
I think beside playing a newer/updated setting. The old setting would be fine. You just have to consider it an alternate history.
 
I wonder if both T2k and its appeal are relics of another era. Has anyone played it in recent years?
Not I. But there is a T2k Google+ community out there and I've seen Wayne Gralian (of Wayne's Books) posting session logs there.

Now, it looks like he started the community and is the only one actively posting content to it, but hey, that's one guy playing it. :smile:
 
I always felt Earthdawn was waaaaay too slow in combats. A big chunk of that, IMO, was the dice chain and how easily things could shift to alter what dice were thrown AND how many throws you'd have too make when you started adding Talents. At higher Circles my Archer might have 5 or 6 Talents involved in making an attack... each using a different mix of dice.
To speed it up I think it needs to lose the dice chain and/or change how Talents work... but those are major changes to the core.
Besides 2e each of the other editions have had major changes to the core.
I've always been of the mind that ED slow combats was a result of having to 'state intentions and rolling initiative' for every combat round.
 
I think beside playing a newer/updated setting. The old setting would be fine. You just have to consider it an alternate history.
That's my feeling. It's old enough to be in the same category as "If Nazis Won the War" now.

One of the missteps the most recent attempt at bringing it back was attempting to update it. You need to lean into the pure '80s Cold War feel of it if you want to to resurrect it.

The original system is pretty cumbersome by todays standards, but a cleaned up version could do very well. I ran it back in the day, and it is basically a sandbox, resource management game. Exploring post-apocalyptic Europe looking for loot. Keeping your vehicles running. Hunting for food and distilling alcohol for fuel. A lot of the crowd into hexcrawls today would love a properly presented version of T:2000. It had mass combat as well. It may even have had some domain management mechanics somewhere in the supplements or an issue of Challenge magazine.
 
I ran plenty of Twilight 2000 using Classic Traveller. We pretty swiftly dumped the system because nobody in our crew really cared about military minutiae and just wanted to run around having firefights. It's a no brainer to convert Traveller chargen and we found Mercenary actually worked nicely for TW2k since you rarely played PCs with many terms of service. IIRC, we did 2 term chargen.
 
I ran plenty of Twilight 2000 using Classic Traveller. We pretty swiftly dumped the system because nobody in our crew really cared about military minutiae and just wanted to run around having firefights. It's a no brainer to convert Traveller chargen and we found Mercenary actually worked nicely for TW2k since you rarely played PCs with many terms of service. IIRC, we did 2 term chargen.
I hadn't played Traveller back in the days when I was running T:2000, but that really is the perfect system for it.
 
I hadn't played Traveller back in the days when I was running T:2000, but that really is the perfect system for it.

I've wanted to play gritty, mundane, contemporary, early post-apocalyptic Traveller for some time now. I love how character generation, once stripped of most spacefaring skills, turns out regular joes with one or two useful, reliable skills like Electronics or Medic or Gun Combat. And I love how combat is crazy deadly and radiation can ruin your PC. That's all I need, really,
 
I've wanted to play gritty, mundane, contemporary, early post-apocalyptic Traveller for some time now.

Classic Traveller
reroll "sci-fi" skills (or re-define them)
Marines get Blade instead of Cutlass
All tech is max TL 7
Boom. Done. Shooty-Stabby.

Then import whatever is meaningful to you from TW2k.

We had one dude who eventually worked out the CT stat mods for the most common weapons (but we did fine with just using Auto Rifle for M-16s and AK-47s). The problem we had with TW2K eventually was political / real world nitpicking, so we just did TW2K on another world and added some sci-fi elements. I remember a Traveller's Aid Society adventure called Zhodani Soft Bunk that was a big inspiration for that "TW2K in space" campaign.
 
Gamma World. Not using the current D&D system but back to the 4th printed version (not the D&D 4E version) with classes. But go back to the crossbow being the ultimate weapon to start and chuck the muskets.
 
Gamma World. Not using the current D&D system but back to the 4th printed version (not the D&D 4E version) with classes. But go back to the crossbow being the ultimate weapon to start and chuck the muskets.
That was the one based somewhat on AD&D 2E, correct?
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top