New topic:
Why isn`t Perry Rhodan in the USA as famous as it is in the rest of the world? I mean, it`s the biggest Sci-Fi series in the world!

For the same reason why "Das Schwarze Auge" isn't as popular as the inferior "Dungeons & Dragons":
Because it isn't American.

Dangit, you beat me to it.

But he's absolutely right. We Americans love American stuff. If we can't claim it as our own, we don't bother. Just look at Jimi Hendrix and his career.

But the main character of the series is an american guy, so what`s the problem?

I have never heard of Das Schwarze Auge but have long been dissatisfied with D&D. Can you give me a quick rundown of the system?

Not enough guns and freedom. Try adding more bacon.

...seriously though, I've never even heard of the series. The main reason is usually marketing. D&D is a huge money-maker, so the company's not about to let competition in that easily.

Or it could be a game where the save files are stored on the server. I'm thinking something like an MMO.

MMO's sort of do that already with the account migration and similar aspects. But I find the thing about D&D vs other tabletop RPGs rather intriuing. I mean, many love D&D, but if there are far better RPGs out there then everyone must know.

I don't know about the comparison to other tabletop RPGs, but I find the healing situation in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D to be quite poor. Healing magic is ridiculously weak (with the major exception of Heal, which completely changes the healing situation), and there are no healing spells at 2nd or 3rd level, meaning you are stuck with a single extremely weak healing spell.

Other cRPGs tend to handle it much better IMO. Healing magic (especially early on) is a lot stronger, but the game is also balanced around it, making healing a viable part of battle strategy rather than something unnecessarily tedious you do after battle.

Going to have to disagree. AD&D 1E and Classic > cRPG's by a mile. The crpg's are good, but I'd MUCH rather play the pen and paper games any day.

I only really know the 3rd editiond and 3.5 of D&D well. I played very little of 2ed many years ago, and was just a kid then, and as for later editions my friends never wanted to touch 4th ed. The new edition looks bad to me, and I don't think I'd ever want to bother with it instead of 3.5.

Anyway, personally I think I like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2ed the best, although it's sort of 50/50 with D&D. 3.5. D&D does character customisation much better, but I like combat in Warhammer much more. It's simpler, faster, and more dangerous. I have issues with magic in both systems. Again I think I like Warhammer more for being faster and easier, but D&D has more powerfull, interesting spells.

One thing for sure, I find Warhammer easier to run, especially when I need to improvise (which with my players is most times).

If you are replying to my post, note that I am only referring to the healing situation in these games, and not other aspects. Playing a Wizardry game right now (which more or less copies the healing spells from AD&D 1e/2e verbatim), and it took 3 spells to heal 4 hit points once. That's ridiculous. (I did have 4th and 5th level spells, but group attacks resulted in me using them up, especially since there's no multi-target heal (well, there actually is in the Wizardry spin-off I'm playing, but it's 7th level and not that good).)

Some other older games have similar issues. Final Fantasy (pre-GBA) has a similar, though less severe, issue: CUR3 heals at most 128 (or is it 132?) HP, which isn't much when you can get 400+ by end game. CUR4, on the other hand, is full heal + (in battle only) status recovery, just like Heal (aside from the fact that it can't cure poison outside of battle). Bard's Tale 1's healing spells are weak, with the major exception of Restoration (which fully heals the party for only 12 SP and is learned by a class that gets no other healing magic).

There's one other rule in AD&D 1e that I dislike to the point where I will refuse to play under any DM that enforces that rule: the female Strength cap. Thing is, female characters have lower strength caps than male characters, and female characters get *nothing* in return for it. I consider this sexist and will refuse to play any AD&D campaign that enforces the rule. If I am assigned the DM role, I will rule zero the rule out of existence; there is no good reason to disallow female characters from having high Strength if male characters are allowed it.

Earlier in 1E is more brutal than say classic that ran at the same time, the earlier games were about playing smarter rather than being a powergamer of the later versions. And I'm going to ignore the female thing again, not going to be starting an argument with others about it.

Here are a few other AD&D rules I don't like.

1. Coup de Grace: This rule makes disabling statuses more powerful than they should be. Essentially, it turns spells like Sleep and Hold Person into instant death spells. It's bad enough for a player to have to sit out because her player character failed a save against a disabling spell; having the character killed instantly as a result of this makes it even worse. Also, note that this makes it really easy for a level 1 mage to take out a group of enemies 3 levels higher just by casting Sleep (a spell that is overpowered for its level in early editions) and murdering the enemies while asleep.

2. Spell disruption: It's bad enough that spellcasters have limited spells per day; it's even worse when your one spell fails because an enemy happened to hit your mage for 1 point of damage. I also dislike pervasive magic resistance for a similar reason, and it's one problem I have with 3e evasion (the other being that I find the mechanic to be ugly).

3. Sneak Attack and Attacks of Opportunity: These mechanics, introduced in 3e, assume that the battles will take place on a grid. This causes problems for players and DMs who prefer to abstract out positioning. In 1e and 2e, it isn't too hard (rule for backstab: A thief may backstab after spending a turn to successfully Hide in Shadows), but in 3e it causes problems. I also don't like the idea of a character getting an extra action (in this case an attack) just because of an ordinary action performed by another.

One more controversial thing: I am of the opinion that character death should be removed from the rules of tabletop RPGs and only come as a result of an explicit decision on the part of the player.

By the way, one interesting house rule I might use if running a game: Whenever a PC is about to draw from the Deck of Many Things, the player will be told that explicitly and will be allowed to opt out of doing so. This applies even if the PC doesn't know what the item is, or if the PC is under the control of someone else (for example, if under a Domination effect). With this rule, I no longer have to worry about players being scared of unidentified decks of cards ruining the campaign.

I can't tell you anything about "Das Schwarze Auge" ("The Dark Eye") itself, but several games here are based on it: the "Realms of Arkania" , [url=http://www.gog.com/game/blackguards_special_edition]"Blackguards", "Chains of Satinav" and "Memoria".