Sellswords vs Rangers of Shadow Deep. Head to head games. Conclusions.

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Crikey, I have tried to write a review of the rules and found it is rather long, so I will break it down into easily digestible chunks.

The aim of these reports was to try to create two groups of characters using these two different rule systems and then play a similar scenario with each.  The scenario that was chosen was one I felt was translatable to both systems.  For balanced teams that could show off the different rules systems I made the RoSD team third level; the SS&SS group departed from a usual starting build such that each main character had 50 points to spend and each of the pairs of minions had 30 points to spend.
There are event cards in both games (more about these later) and I tried to make these similar for each game to fit the scenario.

Both games are designed for solo or cooperative play.  They both use d20 for most dice rolls.  Semi-random events are controlled by a deck of event cards.  Each player has a character or a small band of characters.  The games represent a blend of RPG and wargame complete with character building, progression of characters, individualising the adventurers by choosing different skills and abilities and out-of-game campaign activities.  Sellswords was first out of the blocks, but RoSD has been better publicised and marketed.  Both games come from impressive pedigrees; Rangers from the Frostgrave stable of rules and Sellswords has evolved out of Song of Blades and Heroes.  Table size is typically around 2.5 feet square (yeh, they both use imperial measures) for Rangers and 3 foot square for Sellswords.

The rest will have to wait until another night but the next installment will cover the most important aspect of gaming - killing stuff!!!!!

[Arundel]

Excellent preliminary thoughts, A - largely due to this thread, both these rules on now on my radar for future purchase. The solo/cooperative play angle is extremely attractive to me. One question I have is whether one is faster in the party-building department, and are both about the same in terms of bookkeeping?

Thank you again for the discussion!

[capthugeca]

Excellent preliminary thoughts, A - largely due to this thread, both these rules on now on my radar for future purchase. The solo/cooperative play angle is extremely attractive to me.

Just to add something else to the mix, it might be worth having a look at "Blood on the Blade" by Gottardo Zancani. There's currently a special bundle offer on the fantasy and scifi version on Wargames Vault so I recently gave in to temptation. 

[Arundel]

Will do, C, thank you for the tip! 

[Blazmo]

To people who have tried Rangers of Shadow Deep did you find the second mission was a bit too easy? I managed to clear the board of all enemy forces by the eighth turn which made fulfilling the other objectives a cakewalk. Thus far I'm two missions in and I haven't lost anyone yet. Is this usual?

[Chairface]

To people who have tried Rangers of Shadow Deep did you find the second mission was a bit too easy? I managed to clear the board of all enemy forces by the eighth turn which made fulfilling the other objectives a cakewalk. Thus far I'm two missions in and I haven't lost anyone yet. Is this usual?

I played it twice, once with a group and once with my Son. The first time we walked through the scenario, just liked you described. The second time we took a lots casualties. It all comes down to the dice rolls

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

The second part of my head to head review.

First up: body count.  Sellswords is far bloodier for the forces of evil.  In Sellswords you will kill horde creatures by the bucket load.  This can be altered a little by making these creatures a little hardier, but they still die by the buck load, just a slightly smaller bucket than the bucket used previously.  More dangerous individual monsters tend to be harder to kill, some much more so.
In Rangers the body count of the companions of the rangers is somewhat higher (think the guys in the red skivvies on Star Trek) but thankfully the chance of actually dying after getting an axe through the head is relatively low (the post game rolls for the fate of those taken to 0 hit points is quite forgiving).  The number of foes has to be kept lower in RoSD. 

Combat is more D&D (1st and 2nd Ed is all I know, so can't comment on 3rd to 5th Eds) in Sellswords.  You know an orc will only do 1 damage and therefore will take at least three hits to kill you.  But a troll can cause 2 damage – one hit would be disconcerting, a second decidedly deadly.   
In sellswords you roll one die for combat – essentially an unopposed roll for success.  If the creature loses you do nothing more than remove the damage (a set amount in 99.5% of the cases).  If the character loses you may have to roll again for a shield save and yet again for an armour save depending on how the character is equipped.  Characters with shields and armour prove to be very hard to kill, but a couple of bad rolls or a particularly brutal opponent can kill.

Combat, on the face of things, is faster in Rangers, rolling a pair of dice – one for the good guys and one for the forces of evil – an opposed roll.  Then add bonuses etc for each.  Then decide who won, subtract the armour rating of the target and then apply damage.  Damage takes a bit more recording as creatures will have 10, 20 or more hit points; in Sellswords we are typically dealing with 1, 2 or 3 hit points.  Combat is less predictable and can swing quite wildly.   I thought this type of combat resolution would be better than Sellswords’ but I may need to reconsider this.  The easier record keeping of Sellswords suits an impatient and rash player! 

[blacksmith]

To people who have tried Rangers of Shadow Deep did you find the second mission was a bit too easy? I managed to clear the board of all enemy forces by the eighth turn which made fulfilling the other objectives a cakewalk. Thus far I'm two missions in and I haven't lost anyone yet. Is this usual?

I've read reports of people dying in that scenario, or just the opposite. I think It's the D20 roll that it's a bit wild. You may roll low scores a few times and loose all your group members or the other way round. I mean, the silliest creature could kill your ranger in any moment because of the die roll.
As you see, I'm a bit D20 hater

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Of interest regarding opposed d20 rolls:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DWHXp914DrR9cHYxHzZlYkjbpBapvlsC7S8CgalllWM/edit?hl=en&hl=en&hl=en#gid=1

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

How characters interact with their environment and the enemy creatures is an important part of a solo/cooperative game.  There has to be that feeling that the unexpected could happen or that you don't have complete control of the situation.  These two games approach this differently; Sellswords being more random and chaotic, Rangers taking a more organised approach.

Activation is a given in RoSD – each character can generally have two activations each turn.  The turn is very structured with clear phases.  There is the possibility for group moves in the Ranger’s phase as long as his minions are within 3” and no more than two are activated along with the ranger.  A player can work out issues of time and space quite easily knowing they have a guaranteed movement and when the enemy will move.  Some uncertainty is introduced by the event cards, one of which is drawn at the end of every 1-2 rounds depending on the scenario.  In Sellswords each figure has to decide on how many activations they will attempt (one to three)  and then roll to see whether they successfully gain their activations.  Each failure sees an event card drawn.  These cards will activate an individual, or group of monsters, or even all monsters but might also trigger some special event, see reinforcements arrive, trigger traps or ambushes.  If you fail spectacularly in your activations you may see three evnt cards drawn at once. Everything is very unpredictable and creates a delightful mayhem that means nothing is certain.  This is a great mechanic for a solo or cooperative game that lacks a human opponent.  Some situations could get silly, with enemies standing doing nothing for turns even when, by rights, they should be peppering the characters with arrow or spells.  Still, this can be rectified by scenario specific rules.  For me, this aspect makes SS&SS superior to RoSD.

[Arundel]

This has been most informative, E. Can't thank you enough.

[Arundel]

Hmmm, just went to Ganesha's website and it looks like Sellswords and the cards are only available as pdfs? I hate pdfs. What a shame! 

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Hmmm, just went to Ganesha's website and it looks like Sellswords and the cards are only available as pdfs? I hate pdfs. What a shame! 

It is such an easy game I never have to go to the rules during a game other than the easily printed reference chart.  For the cards I simply print them off, cut them out and paste onto a standard playing card.  Not professional or elegant, but does the job.  As I have modified the game to suit my own purposes I have largely made up my own cards for monsters and have added some different event cards. 
Give it a go.

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Here I will try to conclude and make a few comments about what I see are the merits of the games.

Both games are very customisable and there is great scope to individualise characters.  They clearly straddle the boundary of RPGs and wargames.  RoSD is more polished in it’s presentation and clearly their marketing has been much better.  Rangers is possibly more accessable; other than using d20 you only need a normal pack of cards.  Sellswords needs the event deck printed off and made into cards.  In reality, this is very easy.  I just cut out the card text and pasted this on a normal playing card – not elegant but gets you gaming quickly. 

Rangers has an easier combat mechanism, but requires more book keeping.  The character building is easier and more elegant but lacks the diversity of Sellswords which has far more skills and abilities.  Rangers suits a magic-lite world and special abilities have to be carefully husbanded as they are one shot wonders.  The approach to abilities and magic in RoSD is something that could easily be transferred to Sellswords if a similarly low magic game was preferred.  Rangers also has a very elegant approach to the growing menace across the campaign with more event cards and greater threat of those events.  Again, this could easily be transferred to Sellswords.

Where Sellswords shines is in the uncertain activation and the unpredictability of monster activation.  You certainly can, and should, make a plan but this will need constant revision.  As much as I thought RoSD combat would be preferable for me, I have decided that Sellswords’ is more nuanced, allows for a better narrative, and is better suited, perhaps, to epic games of mighty heroes (my gaming is set in the First Age of Middle Earth).

As far as which gives the better game, going by my reports you may think I would say Rangers of Shadow Deep is more fun.  Having played far more Sellswords I may be biassed but most games of this are far better that the wretched games in my report.  In my mind, Rangers is more of a safe game giving an average to good outcome in its games.  Sellswords has far greater variety, most games are good, some are fantastic but the occasional game is dire.  I would rather risk the dire game so that I can also experience the fantastic.

Certainly, I will continue to modify Sellswords and Spellslingers and will likely bring in aspects from Rangers of Shadow Deep.  I am glad I have bought RoSD which is a great resource for ideas but SS&SS will be my game.

I have alluded to some of my changes to  Sellswords rules in other posts and will not go into these other than one.  The rule that makes Sellswords move along better, and makes it a little like Rangers, is to allow group moves.  In a band I have a designated primary character (much like the ranger in RoSD) and one or two secondary characters.  A primary character can make a group move with up to two secondary ones if they are not in combat and are within 3”.  The activation roll is made more difficult – a 9 is needed for success rather than an 8; a small penalty but significant enough on a d20.

[capthugeca]

Thanks Ethelred,
Very helpful.