Relative merits of roleplaying systems

From: Nils Weinander <nilsw_at_ibm.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 01:52:11 +0200


Nick Effingham:
> I never did like the Pendragon system to the extent other people
> did. I didn't find it as sleek and simple as other people had told me it
> would be, and the integration of traits/passions with a role-playing system
> wasn't what I expected. Maybe it was because I've got 3rd edition and not
> 4th edition??? For a simple system, look at Storyteller.

Tastes obviously vary. I like many things about Pendragon. I'm ambivalent about traits, but the only thing I have a real problem with is that it works well only for what it was written for: heavily armed and armoured knights. I like swashbuckling stuff where the heroes in silken shirts/bearskin loincloths take on hordes of incompetent goons armed with a sword and nothing else. You can't do that in Pendragon.

I haven't seen the high skills problem others have encountered though. I mean, you have to burn a lot of Glory just to get from 15 to 20.

Storyteller on the other hand, I always found clunky and unintuitive and plain difficult to use.

No matter how much I writhe, I always get back to RQ/BRP as the most playable system, warts and all.



Nils Weinander | Everything is dust in the wind nilsw_at_ibm.net | http://www.geocities.com/Paris/8689

Powered by hypermail