Quote from: Benoist;401698One that *does* IMO fit the bill is Mongoose's RuneQuest II. See Using RuneQuest for actual Dungeoneering for more information on this.

We must have different opinions about what dungeoneering means, because I don't think MRQ2 is an adequate game for that. For me dungeoneering means frequent combats, and in RuneQuest if you fight often your members tend to fly.

Mind you, I'm not saying that I think MRQ2 is bad, I'm currently reading it and it's making a very good impression on me.

Quote from: Claudius;401703We must have different opinions about what dungeoneering means, because I don't think MRQ2 is an adequate game for that. For me dungeoneering means frequent combats, and in RuneQuest if you fight often your members tend to fly.

No no you're right. Though it still would be dungeon exploration, the exact nature of the exploration, and its general pace, would change drastically. See the linked thread where this is discussed in more detail!

Quote from: Claudius;401701Cole, no problem with your parameters, they're very clear!

Forward to Adventure fulfills all your requirements, and so does Dungeonslayers (this one is free, check it out!). I'd like to recommend Savage Worlds, but it doesn't fulfill one requirement (you get XP for "good roleplaying").

I don't recommend RuneQuest nor Warhammer for what you want (they're good games, but not for this), since they both emphasize how your character relates to society. And you can forget about the "too complicated" games if you think Savage Worlds is maybe too complicated for you.

I hope this helped.

Claudius - thanks! I downloaded Dungeon Slayers and I'll be checking it out. I have meant for a while to take a look at FTA, so maybe I will pick up a copy in the next week or two.

I listed games with which I have some familiarity - most I have experience playing or running, whereas I know Burning Wheel and Warhammer more by owning and reading the books.

Here's some speculation on "remixed" megadungeoning:

SW isn't complicated in most senses, it just has a couple strikes against it in particular areas. Resolution is simple, for example, but characters are built by purchasing edges and disadvantages, just in a guided way, and they advance in the same guided-purchase way. Magic is a 'light' power purchasing model. Combat prefers miniatures. Overall I like the game, and these are minor complications, but for what I'm wanting to run, they don't offer any benefit in exchange, and they're a lot of the system. Does that make sense?

As far as XP, what I have is explorers' edition, but XP is presented as just 1, 2, or 3 points based on degree of success, so I don't think it would need to be tied to roleplaying/story. For a dungeon exploration game, I could see the award working like: 1 point - any PCs died, total bust for treasure or tactical goals, etc; 2 points - successful expedition; 3 points - rich treasure haul, discovered an important secret, party returns from the dungeon without a scratch on them, etc. Not so granular, but, not bad. Other XP systems that I like here would be for example: Basic D&D Gold --> Experience, or Runequest - Skill used --> Check to improve.

Runequest isn't really what I was thinking of in terms of the heavy social/political factor in the game. Once the characters are rolled up, they could pretty much drop out of society unless they wanted to enjoy the magical benefits of cult standing or journeyman sorcerer status; and it's not hard to address that all as down time between games. It's not like saying "Houses of the Blooded would be a good game to use for this idea,"by contrast.

The dismemberment thing is more a factor; it's fine or even an advantage if combat is dangerous and discourages fighting every troll "'cause he's there!" but at the same time I don't want the concept of ever fighting a monster to be tantamount to suicide. I'm more dissuaded by the idea of worrying about strike ranks and attribute affecting spells, etc.

Cole

Quote from: Claudius;401701Forward to Adventure fulfills all your requirements...

P.S. - I've asked Pundit this before, but I wouldn't mind another perspective : Outside of things like GMing and campaigning advice, what advantages does FTA offer to a person who already has Tunnels & Trolls?

Quote from: Cole;401668What are Sovereign Stone and Talislanta like? (I have a basic idea of the aesthetic style of Talislanta, but not really how gameplay works.)

Lizaur gives some good points regarding Talislanta.It is available free online.
Even the older eds. are neat.The system derived from Bard Games 'Atlantis' RPG...which would also work well.One table sums up the grades of success which are rolled with a d20 and mod. by att./skill.
The Omni system is a newer version.Some versions have spell lists some a more general approach feel...

Sovereign Stone system is somewhat like savage worlds,oddly enough, in that it utilizes various types of d. (4,6,8,10 etc.)to designate capability.In SS this is added to a skill d. type and rolled vs. target # or other total.You can get bonus d. by exerting yourself (risking stun ) and by other mods.

The magic system in SS is spell based (catagories inc.air,fire,water,earth and void ?)with success coming from rolling the d. types to achieve a total that triggers the effect.The various races have bonuses in corresponding types of spells.The system as a whole is simple enough.

I have seen the core SS book used for $4.
There is also a d.20 version of SS, as there is for Talis..

I do not care for all the setting materials (which are based on some works of fiction) but that can be ignored.

Hope this helps!
(T&T is still one of the best simple systems for dungeon crawl IMO)

Quote from: Cole;401695Elliott, thanks -I'll check these out - both games I've heard of but never really had an opportunity to look at.

You're welcome. I should mention that TFT as written only gives experience points for killing things. If houseruling this is a problem (although I don't see why it would be), then you may want to skip it.

QuoteIn the meantime, do you have a one-or-two sentence explanation on the differences in magic between 2/3/4? I mentioned "discrete spell lists" both because I think it's a huge convenience, and because I also think it's good to have a concrete framework for "these are the kinds of things 'Wizards' are known to do."

Tal 2 has IIRC rather broad and fairly flavorless spell lists, with most/many types of spells doing similar things, just renamed. E.g. flame bolt vs. water bolt. Tal 3 introduces a much more flavorful differentiation in the spell lists of different schools of magic. This is done under cover of an "in-world" discovery of ancient magical secrets, but I really don't see any need to bother with that unless for some reason you've already started a Tal 2 campaign and decide later to switch to Tal 3.

Tal 4 ditches all that and instead has a system of Modes and Orders that you'll find in the Sampler. The idea here is that users of magic know so many myriad spells that enumerating them in game terms would be impossible. Therefore the game-mechanical method of handling them is to have players make the spells up on the fly, using certain constraints. The Orders are basically magic types (air magic, for example) while the Modes are magical effects (attack, defense, movement, etc.). So a player basically says "I'll attack him with a gust of wind" and use the Air/Attack ratings. But the same player cannot use the same ratings to, say, power a sailboat, because that's not an attack.

I find it too "meta", and on top of that it doesn't match well with the idea of spell-users trying to hunt down or research specific spells, which is very Talislantan (and very Vancian, which is supposed to be an influence). So I like 3e's approach best. Somewhere along the line 4e or 5e might have found a way to deal with this issue, but I haven't had a chance to look at the later magic books to see what they do.

Quote from: skofflox;401738Sovereign Stone system is somewhat like savage worlds,oddly enough, in that it utilizes various types of d. (4,6,8,10 etc.)to designate capability. (...)
I have seen the core SS book used for $4.

If you decide to hunt down Sovereign Stone then go for the Revised Edition hardcover. Don't buy the First Edition softcover!
Here's the reason why.

Other than that I second:
Talislanta 4
Barbarians of Lemuria
Dragon Warriors
(In February I collected a few links of praise for DW on this very forum.)

hmmm...how about Dragonquest 3ed.?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;401831If you decide to hunt down Sovereign Stone then go for the Revised Edition hardcover. Don't buy the First Edition softcover!
Here's the reason why.

Other than that I second:
Talislanta 4
Barbarians of Lemuria
Dragon Warriors
(In February I collected a few links of praise for DW on this very forum.)

Thanks for the links and advice regarding Sov.Stn...I concur...I was just giving a very general overview of the base mechanic.

Dragonquest would probably be a good option except that it's not readily available. Or is it? Now that you mention it, I think there may be a restatement/clone of it somewhere. Possibly here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/

The other problem is that 3e is probably not the preferred edition. Maybe there's a page out that that fixes the errata introduced in 3e editing, as well as the sanitizing imposed by late-80's TSR. There are a pretty good collection of fan resources available.

Another possibly minor issue is that there's a divergence of opinion on whether some aspects of the game are broken and need houserules. As I've never played a campaign I can't really say, but I've seen one critic who felt that beginning spellcasters were too weak because they had low success chances and high chances of spell backlash. What I think this ignores is (a) the rules have a ritual system that allows you to reduce the risk by spending more time, and (b) there are far fewer limitations in being a spellcaster in DQ than in D&D. So this is partly a case of old-school balance--you wants to be a wizard, you takes your chances, and the overall effect is to winnow the population of wannabees.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;401883Dragonquest would probably be a good option except that it's not readily available. Or is it? Now that you mention it, I think there may be a restatement/clone of it somewhere. Possibly here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/

The other problem is that 3e is probably not the preferred edition. Maybe there's a page out that that fixes the errata introduced in 3e editing, as well as the sanitizing imposed by late-80's TSR. There are a pretty good collection of fan resources available.

Another possibly minor issue is that there's a divergence of opinion on whether some aspects of the game are broken and need houserules. As I've never played a campaign I can't really say, but I've seen one critic who felt that beginning spellcasters were too weak because they had low success chances and high chances of spell backlash. What I think this ignores is (a) the rules have a ritual system that allows you to reduce the risk by spending more time, and (b) there are far fewer limitations in being a spellcaster in DQ than in D&D. So this is partly a case of old-school balance--you wants to be a wizard, you takes your chances, and the overall effect is to winnow the population of wannabees.

Thanks for the link! I just sold my 3ed DQ to the used game store and see that they  put it up for $20.00. I have seen it new for as low as $5.00! (in Hawaii a few years back and yes I did purchase) Readily available at Noble Knight for less than $20.00.

Good points regarding spellcasters and yes there are ways to raise the base % as you mention. Here is another simple house rule I introduced...allowing a characters score in Astrology to mod the base % (riffed this concept from Fantasy Wargaming by Galloway!).Simple and logical.Timing the use of spells to coincide with your aspect is another way to raise that %!

I have played/owned all eds. and 3rd. is my fave. Ditching the Demon summoning stuff and giving more item creation (or was it Rune use?)details and some expansion on herb use was a great trade off IMO. That book has so many neat ideas, may end up getting it again (would love it in a PDF).

Another simple system (I have studied but never played) is Swordbearer. Simple % mechanic with a neat magic system. Sold my 2ed. copy recently but will be getting on PDF soon.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;401883Dragonquest would probably be a good option except that it's not readily available. Or is it? Now that you mention it, I think there may be a restatement/clone of it somewhere. Possibly here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/

The other problem is that 3e is probably not the preferred edition. Maybe there's a page out that that fixes the errata introduced in 3e editing, as well as the sanitizing imposed by late-80's TSR. There are a pretty good collection of fan resources available.

Another possibly minor issue is that there's a divergence of opinion on whether some aspects of the game are broken and need houserules. As I've never played a campaign I can't really say, but I've seen one critic who felt that beginning spellcasters were too weak because they had low success chances and high chances of spell backlash. What I think this ignores is (a) the rules have a ritual system that allows you to reduce the risk by spending more time, and (b) there are far fewer limitations in being a spellcaster in DQ than in D&D. So this is partly a case of old-school balance--you wants to be a wizard, you takes your chances, and the overall effect is to winnow the population of wannabees.

Also the DPA and especially The Frontiers of Alusia can be helpful. I prefer 2e DQ, and I own the 1e box set and the 2e softcover. Snafaru's page has a link to the pdf of the open source rules, and is a great site in general

Quote from: Sigmund;401952Also the DPA and especially The Frontiers of Alusia can be helpful. I prefer 2e DQ, and I own the 1e box set and the 2e softcover. Snafaru's page has a link to the pdf of the open source rules, and is a great site in general

:cool:
:worship:

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;401883Dragonquest would probably be a good option except that it's not readily available. Or is it? Now that you mention it, I think there may be a restatement/clone of it somewhere. Possibly here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/

The other problem is that 3e is probably not the preferred edition. Maybe there's a page out that that fixes the errata introduced in 3e editing, as well as the sanitizing imposed by late-80's TSR. There are a pretty good collection of fan resources available.

I own Dragonquest 2e - I hadn't given it thought - its heavy focus on "real" Key of Solomon demons always gave it an appeal, but I never did get my head around the system. It may be just presentation - I doubt it's any more intricate than RQ, but the Combat chapter with it's section 2.1.2's and so on made me wary. To those who love DQ : Why do you love DQ?

Quote from: Zachary The First;401536Nah. I had 101 spots. I'm not going to have everything on there.

Why not mention the "original" (the Fantasy toolkits) instead of the condensed and inferior version (fantasy companion) of it?