Started this on RPGnet but I like you people so I thought I'd put it here too:

So, recently been reading Houses of the Blooded, and I really, really like this book. It is hands down one of the best things I've read in a very long time. The GM advice is priceless, especially about NPCs. It's really got me thinking about how I run games and all that.

However...

Dammit, the tone of the author gets to me, especially when he seems to self-wank/praise himself.

For example, several times in the book he recalls someone calling his games "The JW social meat-grinder!" as though that's an awesome thing to have/be/whatever. That sort of thing really sets me off; in fact, it annoys me. I get that you're a famous designer, and that you GM great games. That's awesome, since you're writing games. But including reference to it in your book? Seems...promotionalist?

There are also several times where games he has run or been in are mentioned. I realize that these are supposed to serve as examples of certain principles, but dangit, the way these read it feels like the author just wants to tell you how awesome he, and by extension his groups of playtesters, are.

In any case, anyone ever read something and feel the same? Love the game, plan to use it (or already did) but had to work hard to ignore the author's tone?

Savage Worlds. Not a bad system, but I hate the "It's FAST! It's FURIOUS! It's FUN!!!!" crap. Not necessary.

Anything written by Ron Edwards. Since he just uses rpg's to promote his crappy philosophy of gaming.

I do try to make the tone of my works fit their sarcy spoofy nature. I completly understand if that puts people off.

Quote from: danbuter;421169Savage Worlds. Not a bad system, but I hate the "It's FAST! It's FURIOUS! It's FUN!!!!" crap. Not necessary.

Anything written by Ron Edwards. Since he just uses rpg's to promote his crappy philosophy of gaming.

That's another one: I kept reading that in SW and thought "let me decide assmunch!"

Never read anything by Edwards. Had a friend buy into him though, and kept telling me that everything by him would "blow my mind."

The only part he probably got right was that it would "blow."

Quote from: danbuter;421169Savage Worlds. Not a bad system, but I hate the "It's FAST! It's FURIOUS! It's FUN!!!!" crap. Not necessary.

Also irked the hell out of me when I first read it, and actually stopped me from actually trying to play/run the game for the better part of a year. Thankfully the Explorer's Edition has a less annoying, more technical tone.

Kevin Siembieda sometimes gets pretty annoying.

Ken St. Andre's tone in T&T - kind of like Savage Worlds' "It's fast, it's furious, it's fun!" oh and also "Screw you Gygax!" got tiresome pretty quickly (one reason why I sold the rules and moved on...)

The pack of furries and weeaboos who wrote Exalted.  Man, where to begin...western fantasy tropes are bad, everyone from the 90's onward grew up on anime anyhow...and that's just drawing from the fucking introduction.  

Whatever that hack who wrote Amber Diceless' name was, Eric something or the other, yeah that's a load of PUNDIT NO PUT THE GUN DOWN! (I'm kidding - I've never played or read these/them)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;421207Whatever that hack who wrote Amber Diceless' name was, Eric something or the other, yeah that's a load of PUNDIT NO PUT THE GUN DOWN! (I'm kidding - I've never played or read these/them)

(*snarls*)
(*snarls*

Savage Worlds and Burning Wheel both immediately come to mind.  I found their intro documents so "toney" that they removed all desire from me to learn any more about the full rules.

I did end up playing Savage Worlds in a con game, though I didn't like it.  So for me, it neither plays nor reads well.

The first edition of Star Wars d6. The sourcebook commentary was some of the most "let me buy you a pack of gum and show you how to chew it" nonsense I've ever read.

Characters in Star Wars never invent anything, ever, so none of your characters can. If they do, you're no longer playing Star Wars. Your characters can't blow up the Death Star because Luke already did. Also, none of your characters can have secret fathers or sisters who are evil figures because Lucas got away with it, but you can't. And here's a whole bunch of other shit that we say you can't do. Seriously, fuck you, WEG. Stick to your job, stat up some stormtroopers and stay the fuck out of my way.

Also, Burning Wheel. I like the system just fine, but having the three little devil-mascots with distinct personalities show up in the sidebar and pass on worldly game developer wisdom and have little arguments with each other... not really something I need from a rulebook.

Finally, any game where the rules themselves try to take on some genre patois and talk directly to the reader. The worst example of this I can think of is Deadlands Reloaded. "Consarn it, pardner, when it looks like them rustlers are comin' to take your water, I reckon you ought to roll 1d8 plus yer Wild Die, then consult the Lynchin' Table on page 238..." Graaahhhh.

Heh.  The first edition of Savage Worlds got my goat with that whole "Savage Jack," skully-thing leering at me and making snide comments in the sidebars.

Hope they toned that crap down with later versions of the rules (I've only got the Revised rules prior to the SWEX edition so my knowledge of the Savage Stuff is woefully out of date).

Two things really bother me in a game text, or any text: cheesy jokes that aren't funny, and embittered, snarky denigration of (real or imagined) opponents. Snarkiness and cheap shots in general, actually.

The Riddle of Steel did it for me.  The tone of "everything you've ever loved about RPGs - and by RPG we mean D&D because that's the only other game we've played - sucks and you should play a real game" really threw me off.  It's a shame as the combat mechanics are fun.

I would like to nominate Steve Kenson and his Blue Rose/True 20 game which forced a style of game and world view down your throat rather than letting the GM set his own tone or agenda.

Burning Wheel.

The choice of verbiage/writing style and pretentious attitude of the author overshadow some of the excellent ideas contained within.

I found the devils and opinions in Burning Wheel helpful, at least when it comes to rubber-meets-road for the system.

But if you can't guess by my location, I'm able to just kind of shrug off most attitudes.

Plus, Gygax had a penchant for declaring, at great length, through the DMG and various essays in Dragon, what "good gaming" or a "superior campaign" was, your own experiences at the table be-damned.  I don't see many people here bitching about him, although that happened many times elsewhere before his death.

The thing is, Gygax knew his game, and Crane knows his.  It's just a matter of cutting through the tone and realizing a lot of the advice has at least some insight into how things should work.