I'll chime in with my initial impressions as well (better than to start a new thread, I think).
I'm coming from MERP here (with MERP leading me to HARP and VdD, which are both games that I enjoyed reading, but never actually played). I tend to prefer rules-lite games these days (at the moment I'm writing scenarios for Troika! and Cloud Empress, which are pretty much at the opposite end of the scale from the Rolemaster family); but I also like games where details like armor, weapon effects and how and where you are wounded actually matter, I just don't get around to playing them anymore. So take whatever I have to say with a grain of salt, because all of this is from theory, not from practice with the rules of FE.
Jutst a quick note, the abbreviation I use for Fantasy Express is FX (it is even in the book... heheh) it is also why the X in the title is larger than the rest of the word express.
First of all, as others have stated, I really like the combination of RM's exploding dice and critical success levels with a 2-dice-bell-curve. Swingyness is nice, but FE feels like it gives the system a more solid foundation when it comes to what can be expected of a roll.
I have always liked bell curves (or a bell pyramid in this case hehehe), and I like open-ended rolls, so I paired them together (my other games do this in a different way, but I like this method better, I think).
I like that there are individual spells (like in HARP), not spell lists, though I still have to dive into the magic system.
They are not quite the same as found in HARP, but I think that they are better overall, and sorry, but I do not have a spell creation system that I used other than this feels right). The spells themselves were inspired by the spells from the 30th Anniversary Edition of Arcanum (among other places).
I love that the heroic path from VdD is in, it is a really great implementation of "fate points" mechanics!
I thought so as well!! I am so glad that Max and the others at Open Ended Games came up with it.
I skimmed the combat chapter, and the most obvious change is the lack of hit/crit tables. The latter being replaced by a "build your own crit with success levels" system makes a lot of sense. I'm not quite sure if it's a simplification, though; the upside of MERP/VsD is that you just roll your dice and then can look up what happened; the downside is the lack of control (and wherever systems from the RM family try to work around that by providing rules for called shots, disarming opponents or stuff like that, it always feels like, well, a workaround, and not really organic to the system). I know the "count your success levels and go shopping for special effects" from two other RPGs, the BRP-based Mythras and Green Ronin's FantasyAge. Both are systems I like, but I must confess that I don't run them any more, in part because of the analysis paralysis inherent in the "shopping" part - and there's a lot to shop for ... sure, players who don't care can always just choose the special damage from the table on the top, but the problem is that some players WILL (over-)analyze their options.
The simplicity/complexity of my take on this versus how Against the Darkmaster handles it depends on your point of view.
For many folks, the multiple attack tables and critical tables found in RM and even in Against the Darkmaster could be considered complex (I have certainly seen much dislike for the page flipping over the years....)
Looked at from the other direction, roll on table one, roll on table two is simple, and the build your critical is more complex.
Personally, I liked the idea of trying to build my own critical. And the way it is set up, some of the possible effects sort of, but not exactly mirror those found in the specific Martial Moves (i.e. you can attempt the Martial Move: Disarm which is resolved one way (Conflicting Actions), or decide AFTER your attack roll to use some of your Success Levels to disarm your foe, which is resolved in a different way (a Saving Roll).
This allows flexibility in approach without adding too much complication -- I like simple but flexible, so that was my general viewpoint in writing this.
Still, I must say that it looks like the overall effects of the criticals have been abstracted quite well form traditional crit tables to create a more abstract and flexible system; that alone is a really great achievement. I'm not sure that I'll play it, but on paper, I like it.
One of the main thing about critical tables is their flavor text. It was always intended that a GM alter the flavor text to fit the situation, but too many did not do that or refused to do that.
By abstracting this down, and allowing the GM to supply the flavor text (I think I showcase this in the Combat Example), I am trying to keep that simple results, but flexibilty for the GM to describe it how he likes.
From what I've read by now, FE could certainly rival Mythras as a crunchy, grounded fantasy system, and if I ever get the opportunity to run it, I'll certainly give it a try.
Thank you.
Also, welcome to the forums!!
