Many games have a lot of things I like, but not the complete package. D&D has hit points and I think hit points take tension out of combat scenes. Players only really become worried about fighting when their characters drop below 20 HP. Also, I am not a fan of level and classes. Players tend to roleplay the class and not the character. I am a thief or I am a ranger often becomes more defining than a character's background, social class, or family. My system is probably most similar to Harn, but my problems with Harn have the do with the combat, you don't have a ton of options when fighting. To be honest, the originally my system was just Harn which I tried to adapt to my own setting (not a huge fan of the Harn setting), however Harn mechanics are so dependent on the setting. Over time I slowly realized I was writing a new game. In the past, I have always done Renaissance settings in 7th Sea. While I love 7th Sea, your character is an action hero. Sort of the same problem I have with D&D, you begin play much more powerful than an ordinary person. I like games where you are an ordinary person (like Harn) because if forces you as a player to breath life into your character and really deal with consequences of the decisions you make. In the end, I developed a system which is sort of a mix of some of the features I enjoy from Harn, 7th Sea, and Alternity. I think my system works. The core mechanics are pretty well flushed out, I am more trying to add details and fill in some gaps. As for the setting. I can be pretty picky with settings. My education (and my passion) is in History and Classical studies. I love trying to understand how the past worked and I find that something more similar to reality is much more interesting and dramatic than how we generally imagine fantasy worlds. Take kings for example. In Skyrim, kings (or Jarls) just sit on their thrones all day waiting for the player to interact with them. The king on his throne is a very common sight in RPGs. However, in reality, kings were often far more interesting. Just looking at Charlemagne, he had courts all over Europe and he was always on the move between them. He was always fighting wars against someone. He enjoyed hunting and eating meat. Charlemagne received an elephant from an Arab king as a gift. More amusing, he would hold meetings with foreign dignitaries in giant bathtubs. I think having adventurers meeting with a king in one of these setting would be so much interesting, entertaining, and open up a lot more options for action. So in my settings I still have magic, I still have elves and dwarves, I still have many of the things which make fantasy settings so much fun...but I try to make them more believable. When most settings write about elves, for example, I don't think they have really considered the deeper implications of being immortal. What sort of stresses would that put on a society? I mean population control would be so important, otherwise you would just reproduce until you exhausted your food source. How would potentially living forever shape you views of death? As humans we know that we are going to die eventually, and I think we find comfort that all humans share that fate. But if an elf dies in battle, what would his peers think of him? That elf could have lived forever, but now he is dead. Would that see that as the greatest of tragedies, or somewhat pathetic? When I bring up history in describing my games, I am not talking about making us roleplay Caesars march on Rome. That's homework. But I want societies and cultures to at least "feel" authentic and lived in. I want cities in my games to have to deal with problems real cities have to deal with, like feeding their population or maintaining sanitation. Additionally, I want us to all be able to play in the same sandbox. I think the Planescape setting is absolutely brilliant, but I have a really hard time playing in it because that sandbox is so surreal. There are no real "rules" which the DM or players can really agree upon because the setting is so open. Maybe if I was a better artist, I would have a better time with it. If I describe an Aurelian in my game, you would probably pick up that they are based off the Romans. Without knowing much more, you have an idea what their language sounds like, you have some ideas about what religions they follow, you can imagine what his armor looks like, etc. However, if I describe a troll from Guz Dran in the Plane of Shadows....you have little to relate to. Lastly, most settings don't have much of a sense of time to them. You can be adventuring to find a holy suit of armor which is 4,000 years old and guess what, not only is it full plate armor (the same technology you use), it even fits you perfectly. But in my setting, if you are searching for ancient artifacts I want them to feel as though they come from a different culture from a different time. Sorry for the wall of text. I hope I answered some of your questions. I have a lot more to say, but it might stray off topic. If you have more questions feel free to ask. Overall, I am happy running either a Greek or Renaissance game, I just want to play. I am more prepared for the Greek campaign, but I can switch focus. I wan't to see what people are interested in an go from there.
