|
5 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 11:21PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2008
|
This is like saying D&D sucks because you think magic spells and elves are stupid.
And I'm sure there are people who do, in fact, have that opinion.
It's a valid opinion to not like fantasy, but speaks nothing about the quality of the setting, story or system. As another poster said, it'd be like saying seafood restaurants are all poor quality because you don't like seafood. Your dislike of seafood says nothing about the quality of seafood restaurants, only that you don't like seafood of any quality (good or bad).
I personally don't like steampunk settings; the genre just doesn't "do it" for me. But I'm not so close minded as to think my distaste for it equates to every steampunk movie/story as poorly made.
I understand your point, though. It's why when I recommend Lord of the Rings (my all time fav book) to people, I add the caveat of "but if you hate fantasy settings, it's not the book for you". 
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 11:35PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2011
|
My prize for worst system goes to Deathwatch, just for the learning curve. Playing it for the first time goes something like this:
1. Here is a list of 100 rules about how characters interact with the world in this game system.
2. Memorized that? Good, now here is a list of how your character runs roughshod over about 2/3s of those rules.
Worst story goes to WoD:
Vampire: "I fight an eternal war on two fronts- one against my foes in the world, baying for my blood or maneuvering to stab me in the back; the other is against the very demons of my black soul, seeking to devour... uhh, are you talking to me?"
Warewolf: "Huh? Oh, no. I just had to tell a friend across town something, so I started mumbling to myself so I could speak to them with my magical wolf hobo powers!"
Mage: "Are you two coming or not? The pope isn't just going to incinerate himself! Well, technically he will, but not before I get into his brain."
"Ha! Rock beats scissors!" "Darn it! Rock is overpowered! I'm not playing this again until the next edition is released!" "C'mon, just one more." "Oh, all right..." "Wait, what is that?" "Its 'Dynamite' from the expanded rules." "Just because you can afford to buy every supplement that comes out..." "Hey, it's completely balanced! You're just a bad DM for not accommodating it." Spoiler:
Show
RPGs are getting more popular, and whenever something gets more popular, it inevitably changes, usually becoming more palatable to the masses. Nintendo is the perfect example. In the old days their games coined the term "Nintendo hard" to extend play time, but they knew their fans were dedicated enough to play anyway. Now they mostly make stuff a five year old can master. That's not necessarily bad, though. Most of those old Nintendo games were infuriating. Likewise, a lot of old RPGs were too complex and irritating for the average person to really get into. Rules light systems are going to get more popular as more people enter the hobby, simply because the new people aren't bound by nostalgia, and would rather play something easy and fun than something that takes a huge amount of effort to learn.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 3:00AM
#53
|
|
|
I hate to pile on Palladium, but, cool settings aside, the rules text in Rifts books feels like it sort of made sense in someone's head but they weren't able to do that great of a job of conveying it on paper.
I actually really like HERO, but the rules are just so past the line in terms of ease of comprehension. Gettng into HERO feels like a long-term self-improvement project more than it feels like just picking up a game.
This isn't really a knock on the mechanics of the system, but I've only ever been a part of one WoD game where differences in player expectations didn't cause major issues at the table, even where the storyteller has tried to communicate them. Other systems aren't immune to that, but WoD's themes seem to make it way more likely.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 4:09AM
#54
|
|
|
Stinging words, brother! I dig 3/.5/PF for the heavy customization, high complexity setting depth, and general play style. The irony is I'm not a mathy kinda guy. It's a different kettle of fish from 4.0/Essentials. I love both, but I favor 3 more. It's a matter of taste, ya know?
I would argue that the inevitable fate of any game that features heavy character customization is that the gameplay moves away from the table and into cloistered, smelly basements.
The thing with customization is that you really only need a few axes to customize on. You get to choose race, that's 1, then class, that's 2, maybe a class feature for three, and skills which is 4. Maybe a talent or simila mechanic, so 5.
I would argue that a game has enough customization when you can have a party made up of the same race, or the same class, yet all of the members of the party are mechanically distinct and balanced against eachother.
Infinite axes of customizable widgets may look great on paper, but at some point the shiny buttons you pick for your character stop being about gameplay and just become pure narcissism.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 4:34AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2009
|
Rifts sucks. Every time I look through a Palladium book, I wonder if they had a circus of monkeys editing that stuff.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 6:06AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Odd how so many systems mentioned get an "A" for the setting and a "Fail" on the rule set??? I will echo the complaint with World of Darkness and Shadowrun. I will add in True 20 (sorry Green Ronin but your rule set does not work for my group although I love your settings...)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 6:33AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
To add to the general context of the conversation here, I have played in quite good campaigns for all of the games I mentioned as having bad mechanics. None of them are so bad that they can't be played and a good DM can ran a good campaign in a bad system. And obviously a bad DM can ruin a good setting and good mechanics easily.
Mechanically a bad game is one where the games mechanics get in the way of fun. They are unbalanced to the point that the DM constantly has to intervene and tweak things to keep the game going. They are hard to understand and follow, requiring constant reference to the game books to play. They don't address obvious questions in the game rules, forcing the DM to add rules just to play the game. The system is excessively complex so that the game bogs down in details or so simple that everything works out the same. The character system is overly elaborate in areas that don't matter or so simple that all characters are mechanically alike.
Every game has these issues to one degree or another. Particularly on issues of complexity and scope of the game, there is a clear trade off between the two. The generic games get bogged down in excessive complexity because they have to include rules for things that might not matter in the current campaign but are important for other settings. The games with a narrow scope can dodge the complexity problems, but at the same time it is much easier to run into something the game just can't properly express mechanically.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 7:06AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
Worst story goes to WoD:
Vampire: "I fight an eternal war on two fronts- one against my foes in the world, baying for my blood or maneuvering to stab me in the back; the other is against the very demons of my black soul, seeking to devour... uhh, are you talking to me?"
Warewolf: "Huh? Oh, no. I just had to tell a friend across town something, so I started mumbling to myself so I could speak to them with my magical wolf hobo powers!"
Mage: "Are you two coming or not? The pope isn't just going to incinerate himself! Well, technically he will, but not before I get into his brain."
First off, again, *which* WoD are you talking about?
Secondly, regardless of which one, this is a fairly bad misrepresentation of it. I can only assume you've played WoD with some crappy Storytellers.
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 7:53AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
Cyberpunk.
Dated setting, which was cool at the time, but the combat system managed to be incredibly lethal and clunky while still not attaining any kind of realism.
And re: Top Secret, yeah ... it never really WORKED somehow. I guess maybe part of it was that when I was a kid we tried to play it like D&D and secret agents don't work like adventuring parties so much.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 8:12AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
And re: Top Secret, yeah ... it never really WORKED somehow. I guess maybe part of it was that when I was a kid we tried to play it like D&D and secret agents don't work like adventuring parties so much.
I've tried a couple of different spy RPG games over the years, including Top Secret, none really worked well. I don't think the mechanics where the real problem with any of the games. The real problem seems to be that spy adventures are almost all investigations at some level. Investigation adventures are among the hardest of all kinds of adventures to design and run. Putting together the clues so that they make a meaningful puzzle to the players is very difficult and keeping the pacing and tension during the play is also hard.
|
|
|
