Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;1007300I don't hate Shadowrun or anything, but I never "Got" it. Wasn't the whole point of Cyberpunk as a genre that it's a more "Realistic" view of the future? So then you add elves and magic to it?

Not really; it's just dystopian or noir SF.  I'd say it's a more likely future than the Roddenberry-esque "We all grow up to play nice with one another, really we do" fantasy, but I won't live long enough to find out who's right in any event.  Shadowrun was just a Hollywood high concept "Ooo, let's take cyberpunk and put elves and orcs and magic in!" bolstered by a quantum leap in production values, the best the industry had seen to date by far.

Two that I had to work hard to understand were Tribe 8 and Cadwallon... both of which seemed to be purposefully obfuscating their setting to some degree.

Tribe 8 presented most everything in narrative form, rather than straight description... making it hard to find particular details.

Cadwallon had baroque writing and iffy translation... and Rackham liked to scatter vital tidbits across several game lines so that you never quite felt you were getting the whole picture. (Cadwallon's rules are also written to be less than clear, but not particularly difficult once you read them over a couple times).

The frustrating thing is that both are great settings so I didn't want to just give up.

Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth

Really did not get it. At all.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1007245I have some curiosity about the gaming community's obsession with Lovecraftian horror. Sure, it's unique and interesting, at least at first glance, but there seems to be this fascination with sticking it everywhere.

 And I'm not sure why they find it horrifying. An irrational, inhuman, Godless universe is the kind of thing many people take for granted in the cultures where gaming has taken root. I can see how Lovecraft was horrifying to those living in a culture running on residual Christianity without a solid grounding in divine Truth, but today? He seems to be running on themes that are so ubiquitous as to be cliches.

 But this may be a sign of hope--maybe they realize that the kind of cosmos they and Lovecraft dreamed up is no fit habitation for the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve.

I was heavily leaning on answering universal systems until I read this.  I like the idea of Lovecraftian horror and many of the settings but can't imagine getting anyone to play without turning into Ghostbusters.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1007301I don't think I will ever get Champions/Hero as the system is just way too complicated for my tastes. Maybe you had to grow up with it or something. Not sure I really get RIFTS either.

I also don't get how fans of both Fate or Apocalypse World are sold on the idea that they are most innovative games ever, when most of the ideas within have been around for donkey's years. Having said that, I've no issue with actually playing them.

I'm a big fan of HERO, but I think you are right it helped immensely that I was there from the beginning. I picked up this funny little game Champions at Dundracon in '81 or '82, it was only 128 pages or so, with lots of pictures. I've never been a huge comic book fan so I played with it some, but really got into the system when it branched out into Pulp (Justice Inc), Fantasy (Fantasy HERO) and modern (Espionage / Danger International) which kept the focus pretty tight. 4th ed came along in 1988-89 compiling all the rules into a generic rule set or a larger supers oriented Champions book.

I think 4th ed was still manageable for a beginner, about 256 pages but unless you were doing supers you didn't need a lot of the more complicated rules. But the 3rd ed stand alone genre books was probably the end of the easy introduction phase of the game. With the exception of a magic user in Fantasy HERO there was little mention of the more complex building aspect of the game, Champions has always been the most complicated aspect of the game regardless of edition, just the nature of supers games.


If I hadn't followed the evolution of the game, I'm not sure I would be a fan either. I probably could have muddled through the 4th ed generic rules, but 5th and 6th are pretty intimidating mountains to climb. HERO eventually produced introductory versions with Sidekick (a basic quick start rules set) and much later standalone Champions and Fantasy HERO. I'm not sure how helpful introductory (quick start) rules are for a game as far as drawing in new players. I think the stand alone games were a good idea, but came far too late.

Champions is the most visible genre of the system which doesn't really help combat the image of HERO is hard, because Supers is by far the most complex application of the system. It also doesn't help that many fans of the system revel in its vast rules showing off all it can do rather than introducing people the the basics.


I'm also a fan of GURPS and it has similar issues. I'm lost when it comes to 4th ed. I managed with 3rd edition, again because I started from the beginning. I've never had the same kind of mastery with GURPS that I have with HERO. Navigating the changes between 3rd and 4th ed and the total mass of 4th, I've just gotten lost along the way.

From my own collection: Nephilim. While the game itself is somewhat comprehensible if you read it really hard, what to do with it and how escapes me.

Fate at the top of my list. I've tried several times with different versions. Just don't get it at all.

I played Aftermath! once, took a week to roll up a character and then a session to decide that nobody understood how it worked.

When I played Traveller, I could never work out how Initiative worked.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1007369Fate at the top of my list. I've tried several times with different versions. Just don't get it at all.

I have the opposite issue. I fully 'get' Fate.

I just think it's a shit game.

So far there's no game I don't get. At least among the ones I've read or played.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1007301I don't think I will ever get Champions/Hero as the system is just way too complicated for my tastes. Maybe you had to grow up with it or something. Not sure I really get RIFTS either.

I also don't get how fans of both Fate or Apocalypse World are sold on the idea that they are most innovative games ever, when most of the ideas within have been around for donkey's years. Having said that, I've no issue with actually playing them.

About Apoc World, I don't know about it being the most innovative ever, but the way it meshes a lot of different concepts towards a radical player-driven/anti-railroad style is certainly new.

Quote from: Itachi;1007379About Apoc World, I don't know about it being the most innovative ever, but the way it meshes a lot of different concepts towards a radical player-driven/anti-railroad style is certainly new.

No, it really isn't. Like, at all.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1007438No, it really isn't. Like, at all.

What game did it before?

One might argue HERO's advantages and disadvantages as a form of story currency which instructs the Game Master in the direction of the story.  I think that's the earliest thing I could point to.  Certainly the various things in a character's back story might be considered a form of player directed plot determination.  I'm not sure when that first showed up Villains and Vigilantes first edition perhaps?  I'm not sure where hero points might have been first introduced, Victory Games James Bond 007 perhaps?  It was certainly a forward thinking game but Marvel Superheros might have been there first with Karma Points being spent for things.

Quote from: Itachi;1007447What game did it before?

Player driven/anti-railroading? Try Ars Magica. Heck, even try Champions or any other game where players take collaborative ownership of a setting premise through their own choices made in character generation. It's not a new idea.

Apocalypse World has a neat system and package, but the way in which it's fans like to claim it's basically re-invented the RPG wheel is what makes it offputting.

Hmm I've read both Ars Magica and Champions and while the former gets it's share of player-driven incentives - and i'ts a great game on it's own - it doesn't approach the degree found in PbtA games where the concept is ingrained in the world creation, formal rules the GM must follow, up to the very resolution system.

Notice though, that I don't think PbtA reinvented the "RPG wheel", so we are not really disagreeing here.