Quote from: Reckall;419278Ravenloft: "We are in a fantasy world, so... exactly... how a scare by a vampire is different from a scare by a 300 feet dragon?

Well, since I can only recall one reference to a dragon in Ravenloft offhand...and it was much less than 300 feet...

Although, that does have merit in the "Weekend in Hell" versions...but that can be counterbalanced by vampires (and every other horror staple) being notably stronger (or at least different) in Ravenloft than in other fantasy worlds.

Oh, shit I forgot Amber, diceless roleplaying system.  Zelazny's setting was pretty ridiculous to begin with but to take a setting that is all about the conflict between "order and chaos" and eliminate random effects was ridiculous.  You could never simulate the novels using the system.  Corwin absolutely could not have beaten Benedict the way he did if they had played by the rules.  Essentially the game is designed to pit PCs against each other to a pretty extensive degree and the way to win those conflicts?  Maybe by orally pleasuring the GM, 'cause there is no good resolution in the rules.  Diceless (that is deterministic) games are just bad anyway.

Quote from: Professort Zoot;419872Oh, shit I forgot Amber, diceless roleplaying system.  Zelazny's setting was pretty ridiculous to begin with but to take a setting that is all about the conflict between "order and chaos" and eliminate random effects was ridiculous.  You could never simulate the novels using the system.  Corwin absolutely could not have beaten Benedict the way he did if they had played by the rules.  Essentially the game is designed to pit PCs against each other to a pretty extensive degree and the way to win those conflicts?  Maybe by orally pleasuring the GM, 'cause there is no good resolution in the rules.  Diceless (that is deterministic) games are just bad anyway.

Heh, this echoes exactly what I remember criticized in the first review I read of Amber, in a Danish rpg magazine, mid-90s. But I think that a lotta people around here will disagree with you... maybe even enough for a separate thread

Quote from: Professort Zoot;419872Oh, shit I forgot Amber, diceless roleplaying system.  Zelazny's setting was pretty ridiculous to begin with but to take a setting that is all about the conflict between "order and chaos" and eliminate random effects was ridiculous.  You could never simulate the novels using the system.  Corwin absolutely could not have beaten Benedict the way he did if they had played by the rules.  Essentially the game is designed to pit PCs against each other to a pretty extensive degree and the way to win those conflicts?  Maybe by orally pleasuring the GM, 'cause there is no good resolution in the rules.  Diceless (that is deterministic) games are just bad anyway.

You are unbelievably wrong. Every sentence here, a triumph of wrongness. There's not one even slightly correct thing in your whole post.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Doctor Jest;419710Burning Wheel - I bought this when it first game out and the blurb on the back sounded so promising, and so many people were singing it's praises online. I find it dense and completely impenetrable.

I actually like quite a few of the subsystems in BW, but it is one of those games that's just a really hard sell to players, for whatever reason.

Quote from: Zachary The First;419966I actually like quite a few of the subsystems in BW, but it is one of those games that's just a really hard sell to players, for whatever reason.

When I first started running BW I made the huge mistake of taking the whole game and dumping it on the players. That of course failed. In my second attempt I introduced the subsystems over time (like intended by the author) and now some people will play nothing but Burning Wheel.
But you gotta like your crunch, to love Burning Wheel.

Anyway, on topic. Gurps never clicked for me, nor did D&D3.whatever. Both are convoluted and do nothing to move the game in interesting directions.

Amber Diceless doesn't do it for me either. I just don't see the appeal. At all.

Okay Mr. Schwager, that earned you an 80a place in IL-purgatory.

Quote from: RPGPundit;419933You are unbelievably wrong. Every sentence here, a triumph of wrongness. There's not one even slightly correct thing in your whole post.

RPGPundit

So tell me why I am wrong.

D&D 3.x: When I first read this, I loved it.  I thought that 3e 'fixed' D&D.  Then I tried running it.  I ran two campaigns (each about a year long!) before I realized that I simply did not like it.  *sigh*.

GURPS 3e: I loved reading the GURPS rules and various setting and adventure books (late 1980s and early-mid 1990s).  But whenever I actually got around to running it, I just did not like it.  At all.  

Spirit of the Century: I tried playing it a few times, and just could not get into it.

Space Opera: Yeah, the FGU RPG from ~1981.  I loved reading the rules and some of the scenarios, but I just could never figure out how to run it.

Lord of the Rings: Decipher's take on Middle-earth looked like it had amazing potential.  Pity the core book was poorly organized, and the system clearly inadequately playtested.  I lost interest after spending a few hours trying to figure out how to create a character.

That's about it.  There are many games that I am confident that I would not like (e.g., WoD, Exalted, anything involving superheroes, etc.), and so never even bothered to try.

Quote from: Akrasia;420075D&D 3.x: When I first read this, I loved it.  I thought that 3e 'fixed' D&D.  Then I tried running it.  I ran two campaigns (each about a year long!) before I realized that I simply did not like it.  *sigh*.

Spirit of the Century: I tried playing it a few times, and just could not get into it.

I can go along with both of these as well. I loved several of the *concepts* in 3.x...in play? Not so much at all.

Spirit of the Century...I wanted to like this so bad...and I couldn't even be bothered to read the whole rulebook.

Quote from: Settembrini;420009Okay Mr. Schwager, that earned you an 80a place in IL-purgatory.

As long as it is warm...

Off the top of my head, games that I played/GMed more than once or twice and that never really clicked for me:

Capes: played like a boardgame, zero immersion
Danger Patrol: mechanically too complex for my tastes, GM does not roll dice
Dogs in the Vineyard/The Princes Kingdom: conflict resolution system (kinda like poker dice) sounds cool, but sucks in play; little immersion
Don't rest your head: see Dogs
Monster and other childish things: way too complex, mechanically; personally, I feel the One-Roll-Engine system is unplayable; very little immersion
One Roll Engine: see above
Prime Time Adventures: aaaargh. Sounded so cool, but sucked ass in actual play. Zerozerozero immersion
Verge: see PTA
In A Wicked Age: finally, a random chart in an indie game, but the resolution system sucked
Das Schwarze Auge 3 and up: too complicated, too many options, a bookkeeping fest
Midgard: bookkeeping fest
generally, all games that use "scene resolution" exclusively (e.g., I like The Pool and octaNe, but they don't encourage immersion, not at all)
Cthulhu: I could never understand how monster gods from beyond time and space needed stats; no horror game = bad

Quote from: Professort Zoot;419872Oh, shit I forgot Amber, diceless roleplaying system.  Zelazny's setting was pretty ridiculous to begin with

Oh boy, here we go... That's really just your opinion...

Quotebut to take a setting that is all about the conflict between "order and chaos" and eliminate random effects was ridiculous.  You could never simulate the novels using the system.  Corwin absolutely could not have beaten Benedict the way he did if they had played by the rules.

I've been GMing Amber since first edition came out, and I can tell you from experience that this is completely, utterly, totally incorrect. Wuj even addressed that fight (Corwin vs. Benedict) in the rulebook.

QuoteEssentially the game is designed to pit PCs against each other to a pretty extensive degree and the way to win those conflicts?  Maybe by orally pleasuring the GM, 'cause there is no good resolution in the rules.  

I don't know where you got your knowledge about Amber Diceless from, but again, what you say is in no way, shape or form correct. Resolution is done by comparing stats, but the amount of Bad/Good Stuff and trickery/deceit also has an influence on the outcome of a conflict.

QuoteDiceless (that is deterministic) games are just bad anyway.

Uh-huh.

I'm another who just doesn't "get" Amber Diceles. It seems to me that the stats and rules are just a bunch of smoke and mirrors to cover over what is basically free-form GM fiat in disguise. At which point why have rules? There is nothing wrong with pure GM fiat, but I don't get why the convoluted process is needed.