Fantasy Craft Second Print vs D&D 4E

[@stroVal]

Can we have a  summary of FC print 2 vs D&D 4th traits from people who have played both?
(I've read the first wave of dnd 4th ed but never played it)

 I do not propose dishing 4th religiously(I know I did that a few times )
Merely  peoples opinions on what works best in each system.
For instance dnd 4th battle compared to FC battle and so forth...

I can start by saying it depends completely on the game you want to have and the rigidness of 4th will seem appealing to a lot of rpg beginners as opposed to the toolkit nature of FC which might seem a bit intimidating.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

FC has greater race choice at core.  And even with supplements I can't say I'm impressed with 4e's selection.

However 4e races have standardization, which could possibly make them easier to remember and may give them an edge when bashing out new ones.

[Gentry]

This is a conversation that is, to quote the great D.J. Trindle, Fraught With Peril^tm. It's almost impossible to adequately compare games in this way, because they're radically different. Design assumptions, branding decisions, and the underlying math of the systems don't share anything beyond the cosmetic, and even in places where some names are kept the assumptions of what those names mean come from two different places.

I say that as a warning. What you get in this thread is going to be wildly subjective, and based entirely on the tastes of the commenting poster.

For myself, 4e is barely a roleplaying game anymore. You can play Descent and get nearly the same experience--it's geared almost entirely to the crawl and the blood and the treasure, and where other details (like the Diplomacy skill) may exist they're given perfunctory treatment at best.

For myself, Fantasy Craft is an actual role-playing game. That is, it gives you the design freedom to actually create any character you want, design your own game world any way you want, and play the game any way your group chooses.

That said, that opinion's mine, and 4e has its adherents. On some level, I'm glad it's out there, because it serves as a nice gateway drug to the hobby for the new player--it takes coin and gloss to get new players into the hobby, and Wizards has the coin to spend on gloss.

[Psion]

Compare the 4e roles vs. the Fantasy Craft roles. That should tell you all you need to know, really. 4e is balanced around all combat all the time. FC makes a conscious (and IME, preferable) choice to make different parts of the story moments for different characters to shine.

Not that you couldn't run FC as just a combat game; much as in SC 2.0, I see the classes you include in the game as instrumental in defining the feel of the game. A 4e pundit might point at FC's critical hit mechanism and scamper away from it in fear of killing their characters without "going through the proper channels". AFAIAC, though, part of what makes for a tense and exciting game is risk and uncertainty.

[EloiseCartwright]

I say this cautiously as I've never actually played it, but if we're looking for what 4E is good at then from observing games it looks like it's very board-gameyness makes it a fairly good sit and play and kick in the door game.
Every class is balanced for combat, with everything else secondary. Whereas FantasyCraft every class is balanced for the long-term and it's a acknowledge that if all you do is fight then there's many many options that are sub-par. So in effect you can slap a character together with a minimum of effort and it'll be combat-ready, then slap a good old fashioned dungeon in there, monsters traps and little interaction.

It's not what I want out of an RPG, if I wanted to do that I'd play Warhammer Quest or Diablo II, but I can see the appeal.

I must admit (perhaps with a tinge of guilt) that the new Gamma World looks like it may well work rather nicely (but then we always did use Gamma World as an exercise in crazy one-shot madness) and the board-games (Wrath of Ashardalon etc) look like a good translation of the format into a relatively quick and fun boardgame.

[Typhon]

Played both but this one much more recently.
As with any system, the GM is the deciding factor.
I enjoy this one more for its more geared tword character success than failure.
The adventures are MUCH more well designed. The problem with many D&D ones are very slow moving. The phrase "dungeon crawl" is VERY well coined since it seemed you'd have to go practically room to room with a day of rest in between to recoup spells and heal up.
Also, seems, that the only way to gain experience is via killing things in D&D. With FC other goals are rewarded (although, thus far, killing stuff still gets you the most hehe).
Another aspect that is fun about FC is how it's staged as a movie. With scenes to play and levels of bad guys (mooks being the lowest type, easily dispatched, specials which pose a greater challenge and then the named villians-who are to be feared and approached in numbers!).
Then there is the cheating death. Which allows for the GM to still enjoy the thrill of a crushing crit from a badguy on one of the heros but still allow them an out.
Then, of COURSE, there is the very friendly forum where you get a chance to pose questions/observations to the actual creaters of the system. Creaters who are regular posters and are well apt at answering questions.
And, of course, there isn't the bitter annoyance of having to buy yet ANOTHER FREAKING EDITION OF D&D!

[@stroVal]

@Gentry: Obviously human errors and subjectiveness are unavoidable.This isn't science.Yet we are completely capable of expressing our opinions as adults and gamers(whos only bias should be having fun and not being a devoted fan boy/gal)
What I am looking for is not:"this game sucks that game rules" but "FC works best in these areas whereas DnD 4E is better for that.."
or merely a list of differences.And then depending on our individual taste,background,imagination,knowledge,prejudice etc we can filter those comments and form a personal opinion.Off course like my supervisor used to say paraphrasing Feynman : ''you can never be sure until you experiment''
@Eloise:That's the opinion I formed when I went through the first books of D&D 4. And then it was the matter of removing Gnomes!(I must be one of the few players who ever used that race but still that ticked me off).Now a friend who's into 4e tells me all those new supplements really evolved the rule-set..But see right there? Even if he is right(and mind you this guy called roleplaying ''cutscenes'' when we played 3.5 together) I need an 'all in one' rulebook not one each month(its so ridiculous they should have a subscription or something)
@Typhon: Your point is win my friend
I am still curious of how PHB2 for 4e could have changed battle as much as people say

[@stroVal]

. On some level, I'm glad it's out there, because it serves as a nice gateway drug to the hobby for the new player--it takes coin and gloss to get new players into the hobby, and Wizards has the coin to spend on gloss.

Yeah I used to think that at first...but really how many players are going to get into Fantasy Craft, RuneQuest 2 ,GURPS Fantasy etc after 4e?
It was easier to get players coming from other systems(even completely narrative ones) into 4e than the other way around...(never mind that we never actually got into playing thats due to other obligations).Most of them were playing pnp for the first time(and usually you expect new-comers to be open to a world of systems)
I am not saying this is a fair statistical sample or its law..just my own experience so far

[@stroVal]

Compare the 4e roles vs. the Fantasy Craft roles. That should tell you all you need to know, really. 4e is balanced around all combat all the time. FC makes a conscious (and IME, preferable) choice to make different parts of the story moments for different characters to shine.

Not that you couldn't run FC as just a combat game; much as in SC 2.0, I see the classes you include in the game as instrumental in defining the feel of the game. A 4e pundit might point at FC's critical hit mechanism and scamper away from it in fear of killing their characters without "going through the proper channels". AFAIAC, though, part of what makes for a tense and exciting game is risk and uncertainty.

True...
-irrelevant- but have I told you I really like your avatar? 

[Psion]

True...
-irrelevant- but have I told you I really like your avatar?  

You did send me a message to that effect, yes. *EDIT* Nope, that was Typhon.

It tickled me when I saw it (I think Mister Andersen posted it), and I've stuck with it since then. By coincidence, I've rented the Bionic Woman series and am watching it again.

[Number Three]

FC is an evolution of the d20 SRD with a goal of more flexibility in all aspects of the game in mind.  4E is designed and balanced exclusively around combat, and jettisons everything not relevant to the tactical exercise.   Whereas FC expands on the skill system to make it more robust, in 4E it's been discarded for a simplified mini-game that, in all fairness, can introduce what most of us call "role play" to the uninitiated, but is given such short shift that it is an afterthought after the 1st character level.*

In the interest of full disclosure,  I don't believe that an RPG needs mechanics that encourage role play.  In my experience, the desire and preferences for role play are a product of the group dynamic at the table.  I'm in two 4E games, and the fact that the rules only concern themselves with combat has not stopped us from role playing in the slightest.  The only way book text will change the way role play happens at the table is if it becomes too cumbersome, and then it's just as likely to get ignored.  I also believe, when the mechanics do exist, rewarding social agility over strict use of the mechanics ("Can't I just make a [skill] roll?") is favoritism, and I think preventing such favoritism was half of what they were after with the 4E skill system (the other half was teaching social agility to players who didn't have it.)

This may make it sound like I prefer 4E.  I absolutely do not.  I play it because it's what my local circle plays, and I enjoy the players far more than any system.  I think it's telling that I've been in a lot of campaigns, including the often ridiculed 3.5, where we could go through a session without a single roll for initiative.  In two years of playing 4E bi-weekly, I can't remember that happening once.  Make of that what you will.


*(I stand by my opinion that, in a game that prides itself on all options being equally valuable, the "Skill Training" feat is a goddamn joke when the multi-classing feats exist.)

[LHG]

I have played both and prefer Fantasy Craft.  Fantasy Craft rewards player creativity more than 4e, in my opinion (because of many of the differences mentioned previously, I imagine).  Also, with 4e, I have found that even a good story seems grafted onto the top of a combat simulator.  To me, 4e "feels" like a computer game rather than a pen & paper RPG--there is nothing wrong with computer games, but when I'm playing a pen & paper RPG, that's not the experience I'm seeking.  While I'm talking about its "feel", I also noticed a cookie-cutter sameness in 4e that I haven't noticed in Fantasy Craft.  (I can't figure out how to explain what I mean by those last two points.  I find my inability fairly frustrating, actually.)

You know, it might actually come down to suspension of disbelief, for me.  I found it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain my suspension of disbelief while playing 4e.  Playing Fantasy Craft allowed me to maintain my suspension of disbelief much more easily and even introduced a sense of wonder that I have missed in RPGs for quite a while.

[Typhon]

True...
-irrelevant- but have I told you I really like your avatar?  

You did send me a message to that effect, yes. *EDIT* Nope, that was Typhon.

It tickled me when I saw it (I think Mister Andersen posted it), and I've stuck with it since then. By coincidence, I've rented the Bionic Woman series and am watching it again.

I can't help but think of Big Bang Theory!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnrUMfZjipw
total awesomeness

[VisualStatic]

For me, FC is a true Pen & Paper RPG, the characters can have depth and meaning, the system has crunch that's been lacking from the progenitor of RPGs....

Where as when I was reading D&D 4E, it felt like the manual to a computer MMORPG.

It's like they've come full circle, games like the original EQ and Ultima tired to mimic what Pen & Paper RPGs like D&D did, now its like D&D 4E is trying to be like WoW or Guild Wars or something... 


Note: the previous has been an opinion.

[@stroVal]

True...
-irrelevant- but have I told you I really like your avatar?  

You did send me a message to that effect, yes. *EDIT* Nope, that was Typhon.

It tickled me when I saw it (I think Mister Andersen posted it), and I've stuck with it since then. By coincidence, I've rented the Bionic Woman series and am watching it again.

I can't help but think of Big Bang Theory!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnrUMfZjipw
total awesomeness

Haha 
Well I meant the quote/scene but It came off weird didn't it? ;p