There are games or systems we might like the idea of, but when we play them, they just leave us flat or uninspired. Nothing against those games, but they just don't "click" for us.
I'm not talking about games we hated/extremely disliked, but games that just weren't...quite there for us?
Do you have games like this? For me, the first one that jumps out (sorry Ed) is GURPS. I've played GURPS and GURPS Lite, would do it again, think SJ Games has made some of the best sourcebooks on the planet, but for some reason I just can't get into the system.
Quote from: Zachary The First;418517There are games or systems we might like the idea of, but when we play them, they just leave us flat or uninspired. Nothing against those games, but they just don't "click" for us.
I'm not talking about games we hated/extremely disliked, but games that just weren't...quite there for us?
Do you have games like this? For me, the first one that jumps out (sorry Ed) is GURPS. I've played GURPS and GURPS Lite, would do it again, think SJ Games has made some of the best sourcebooks on the planet, but for some reason I just can't get into the system.
Witchcraft/All Flesh Must Be Eaten - I would include Armageddon, Terra Primate and Conspiracy X, but I only bought those, we actually tried these two. Witchcraft was doubly painful, because my players loved it, and I just didn't really. That said, karma is a bitch because I love the Cinematic Unisystem as much as I tried to love the Classic Unisystem, and Buffy/Angel kills my group every time, unfortunately.
ICONS is very much on the fence here, as I really do wanna like it, but my first time running it felt like such a trainwreck to me. My six year old loved it, though...so I may be looking at a Witchcraft redux...=P
Fate 2.0. The degrees of difficulty / success are way too coarse for me, and I find it too easy for PCs to top out at a small set of core skills and dominate everyone else.
GURPS would be one for me, too. I like a lot of the world books, but I've never been able to get the game itself past "more trouble than it's worth" in play.
Earthdawn was a setting I liked the idea of, but it didn't turn out to play too well in practice for me. System elements that seemed novel didn't survive the novelty factor after a session or two. The setting's "spins" on the traditional fantasy races, etc didn't come out too well in play either without a lot of 'reinforcing.' I think this could stand in for a lot of fantasy oriented games, this was just one I happened to try and not have a big success with.
I did not get as far as actually running it, but despite liking the grand concept, I was not pleased with the execution in Iron Heroes for many reasons recently discussed.
I liked the idea of playing "a game about Vampires" but when I originally picked up Vampire the Masquerade it was really disheartening - it made me think 'well, this is not what I'd want such a game to be like' and also made me think 'I actually have little idea what I actually would want one to be like either.' I think in some ways it was an early turnoff for me toward 'urban fantasy' as a whole.
Ars Magica was similar in a way, but I tried very hard to like this one. I guess I felt like it wasn't providing me with a great sense of interesting things for PCs to be doing unless I was either forcing a villain of the week, or setting-specific clique power struggles, neither of which were modes of play I have generally favored. I think it also was the beginning of my moderate distaste for free-form magic systems, an idea I had liked in theory, but in context had started to view less as 'magic being magical' and more as 'magic as TV episode scripting."
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;418522Fate 2.0. The degrees of difficulty / success are way too coarse for me, and I find it too easy for PCs to top out at a small set of core skills and dominate everyone else.
This is indeed a challenge for Fudge or Fate GM's. It takes alot of work on an adventure to ensure there are sufficient challenges so that each player gets an opportunity to shine.
There needs to be a framework for teamwork activities which are currently not well developed (at least for fudge).
D20 Modern - Yeah, it's D20, which has many other iterations that are palatable to me. But the more I actually played it, the less happy I was with the way it played out.
WEG Star Wars - It was certainly playable, but compared to other SF games at the time, it just came off as weak.
Mutants & Masterminds is on the cusp here. It comes close to what I want out of a supers game, but no game I've played with it really ever felt over-the-top.
GURPs - I've played it, GMed it, have a vast collection of wonderful sourcebooks for it, but the system is just so bland and clunky. I have no real complaint against it except that it's just aesthetically unpleasing.
Toon - I've simply no idea what to do with this game. The idea of roleplaying out a Looney Tunes cartoon seems boring as hell to me.
Hero System - Again, some good sourcebooks, but I simply cannot play a game with that much crunch. Totally undermines my style of GMing.
Fate 3.0 - I loved the second edition of Fate rules available free online for almost a decade. I don't understand any of the Fate 3e games, especially ones like Diaspora, where the author has some weird anti-GM chip on his shoulder.
Dogs in the Vineyard - the system seems pretty neat, but the setting... "Let's see guys, tonight we could play fantasy warriors, superheroes, occult investigators, or...Mormon missionaries."
Exalted - I just don't get it. I know everyone loves this game, but it pushes exactly none of my buttons.
Ghost Dog - a rather obscure liscensed game by Tri-Stat based upon the film of the same name. I'm not sure who could watch that film and think "this needs to be a roleplaying game". I mean, it's right there with the Dallas RPG in my mind as far as WTF game premises. But I have held onto it mainly because the information on using the mafia and organized crime in a campaign is bar none the most comprehensive, clear and useful treaty on the subject I've ever come across.
Dungeons & Dragons Mainly anything from 3rd edition onwards. I have nothing against D&D, but comparing the game that exists now to my Moldevay boxed set from the 80s, I can't even comprehend these as the same game.
Tekumel - the buy-in for players is just too high.
AD&D2 - At the time, I played enjoyable games with it, but it seemed to be more because of what came before, rather than what changed with it. Now, it either doesn't go far enough to be a 3rd ed tool box, or is just too lame to really be First Ed. So I discard it.
Superhero games - I like the idea of superhero games. When you think about it, lots of games out there, like Vampire or (some versions of) D&D or whatnot, can be taken as superhero games in disguise. But the overt, explicit, modern superhero genre itself... the dudes in tights flying around saving the world from supervillains, justice league style, that doesn't do much for me.
Savage Worlds - want to like, love lots of stuff coming out for it, but somehow it's not clicking with me at all. Which sucks (see related thread, entitled "[SIGH] Savage Worlds" or something like that).
Lone Wolf RPG - Huge fan of the Magnamund and Joe Dever's books, but the d20 game just doesn't do it for me. I would go about it in a completely different way. The background part of the game is really cool, but the mechanics leave me cold.
True 20 - WAY too bland for me.
A lot of my friends like Cortex, but I can't find anything about it I like. Too bad, too--They have some nice licenses attached to it.
I like Savage Worlds as a generic sort of tabletop game. I've run a number of fun scenarios with it. But it's not really much of what I look for specifically in a role-playing game.
I don't like 21st century D&D.
Hero - Love the sourcebooks, kinda like the system. If 6e had removed 200 pages of rules, I'd love this game. Instead, I think they added 200 pages.
Gurps - Same as Hero.
Earthdawn - Barsaive is one of the best settings ever published, but those rules are clunky.
Red Dwarf seemed pretty cool on paper but when I actually ran it it was so clunky.
Never liked D20 3.0-3.5 despite writing 4 books in it.
D20 4.0 was just so damn silly for a game which people take seriously. I take no game seriously but I felt it spoilt it for those that do. Yes more than my camp Tiefling Warlord, Jamaican Gnome Paladin or Frankie Boyle impersonating Dwarf Beastmaster.
oWoD I'm not too keen. It is kind of clunky for a story heavy game.
Quote from: Benoist;418569Superhero games - I like the idea of superhero games. When you think about it, lots of games out there, like Vampire or (some versions of) D&D or whatnot, can be taken as superhero games in disguise. But the overt, explicit, modern superhero genre itself... the dudes in tights flying around saving the world from supervillains, justice league style, that doesn't do much for me.
I'm not much for the JLU style game either (although I loved the show). I find that supers can work well, but you have to marry it to another genre(s) or find some other way to avoid the reactive/railroady nature of the genre. Another thing, I am completely not interested in the playing out Peter Parker's love life. Fuck that.
For what its worth, our BASH game came alive when I worked in the occult mystery elements and let the PCs look for clues- before that it was fucking painful for me, although the players were digging it. I actually have a document around here somewhere that I wrote on how to make a good supers adventure. I'll post it sometime if I can find it.
Oh and for me GURPS, HERO and D&D 3.x, for all the usual reasons (i.e., they objectively suck).
All Superhero games
Gurps
Hero system
FASA Star Trek
WOD etal.
Cthulhu
Battle Tech RPG
Cyber...etal.
to many to list really...
:)
Supers. I just don't like most supers stuff, unless it's extremely gritty or lacks the spandex aesthetic. Unfortunately most of the pop stuff has at least a hint of the spandex.
Battletech. I love the universe, I love the PC games and the tabletop game, but the fluff, IMO, is pretty bland in terms of inhabiting the life of a character. Great setting for battles, meh setting for roleplaying.
Tons of experimental and/or "pushing the envelope" story-games. Either too weird in terms of system or too weird in terms of content.
Talislanta. I don't know. Maybe it's because I grew up with high-fantasy instead of oddball sword and sorcery stuff, but the setting does nothing for me.
Off the top of my head...
Unisystem, Classic or Cinematic. It's straightforward and no-frills, qualities I just love, but I just. Don't. Like. It. It feels bland and uninspiring, neither here nor there, know what I mean? Yeah, me neither.
Exalted. I like the "fantasy superheroes" side, even though the anime/manga aesthetics do nothing for me. The implementation, both in setting and mechanics, is a mess, though.
Iron Heroes. Frank Trollman and others had a big huge thread on this while I was away, so let's leave it at that.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness, I do not know why. I had fun with Palladiums other offerings. I liked reading the books, really liked Transdimensional Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. For some reason, could not make it work at the table.
Dungeons & Dragons 3.0/3.5
It wasn't what D&D was for me. Lots of people loved it. Lots came back for it--that is awesome. It just wasn't what I wanted in D&D anymore.
Quote from: Benoist;418569Lone Wolf RPG - Huge fan of the Magnamund and Joe Dever's books, but the d20 game just doesn't do it for me. I would go about it in a completely different way. The background part of the game is really cool, but the mechanics leave me cold.
You know there is a new version out (also from Mongoose), whose rules are basically (as in exactly), the same as what was in the gamebooks, with a few extrapolations for tabletop play. I ran a game, and it worked surprisingly well for such a minimal system.
There are three books out so far (Core Rules, a large adventure module, and a book of new classes), and a couple more books are scheduled to come out soon (a setting book for Sommerlund and a Bestiary, I believe). Not sure what's planned for the line beyond that.
The book are around $20, so you may balk at paying that much for what is not much more than the rules from the gamebooks, but I don't regret getting it (although I only paid $13 through Amazon)
Yeah, I know what you're talking about. The rules extrapolated from the books are included in the French version of the game, which I also own (I own both the original English version and the French version of the game). That's actually a good point, since I was thinking of the pure d20 approach. I think that, if I were to run the Magnamund, I'd use something like OD&D, with basically the three core archetypes of the game, and all the groups and allegiances as color for the game. Magnakai disciplines, magic of the Dessi and all that would be added to the game as specific stuff you might develop, rather than classes onto their own.
D&D every edition. I played it because too often it was all there was but the alignment system and the process of leveling just appall me. Runequest saved my life as a Role-Playing Gamer.
D20. This is D&D conquers the world.
Palladium. I have managed to overlook ludicrous rules in all sorts of other systems but the Palladium trip-ups just bother me more.
nWoD. Probably only because we house-ruled the shit out of oWoD until it worked for us and the new stuff essentially did not have space for a lot of our house rules. It did not seem as worthy of an investment of time as the earlier game.
Over the Edge. Interesting system, terribly annoying setting and flavor; and interesting doesn't necessarily mean fun.
GURPS. Hero did it first and did it better.
Every superhero game that isn't Champions; Hero just allows a much closer match to how I imagine super humans working.
Delta Green. Probably would have been fine as a supernatural conspiracy game emulating the feel of theX-Files. Does not gibe with my sense of Lovecraftian terror at all.
Shadowrun. Like Palladium it just seems too broken. Also why mix urban fantasy and cyberpunk? Neither one is so exhausted as a genre as to need cross-pollinization.
Traveller is one of my favorite games . . . when run by one or the other of two game masters I have ever known. Nobody else can make it work for me.
Any edition of Gamma World after the second.
World of Synnabar. Do I need to explain this one?
As a HK film fan I really, really liked the idea of Feng Shui. I was so convinced that I would like this that I bought not only the main book but also lots of additional stuff. And then I read it and it just didn't click. To this day I have read it several times and I still find it totally uninspiring. And I still cannot explain why. I think the setting is pretty awful but it's optional so that's no real explanation.
Earthdawn promised a game about legends, but it ended up being this strange Shadowrun-lookalike where the components didn't mesh well and the system felt cumbersome instead of legendary (whatever that means). Something was off; not entirely sure what, but I think one component was being too self-conscious and trying too hard to present the setting as something that made sense until it somehow lost its magic.
Anything using Masterbook. Just ugh. Love the settings for Indiana Jones, Necroscope, etc. but just bad implementation. Too gritty in a bad way. Might as well create 3 PC's at a time, because the first two are dead within the first five minutes.
Did I already say?
Anything point buy.
Quote from: Melan;419000Earthdawn promised a game about legends, but it ended up being this strange Shadowrun-lookalike where the components didn't mesh well and the system felt cumbersome instead of legendary (whatever that means). Something was off; not entirely sure what, but I think one component was being too self-conscious and trying too hard to present the setting as something that made sense until it somehow lost its magic.
We had a good time with it, but we banned PC magic users and very early on we left the official setting behind (literally- by sailing for the edge of the world in an airship). The step dice system was fun once you got the hang of it. That said, I tried to relearn it recently and just couldn't be bothered. I like the idea of things making sense, but the implemetation is, as you say, a little off; furthermore, fucking Barsaive is infused into every sentence in the book it seems, making it impossible for me to get enough distance to do a homebrew.
So yeah, never again. If I want to play D&D, I'll just play D&D.
GURPS - For the same reason others have said - the system seems to somehow be clunky and bland yet bloated at the same time. A lot of it is probably my extreme dislike for the dice mechanic combined with thinking about how many thousands of hours it would take for me to organize even the basics I'd need to run a campaign.
I seriously feel like it is a toolbox for creating your own Powered-By-GURPS game rather than any kind of game on its own. I'd rather just build my own ruleset if I'm doing everything from scratch anyways.
Fudge - I'll never understand why this became such an internet darling - it's the dullest thing since white bread to me. In play, I quickly understood that if you were good at things, you almost always succeeded while if you were bad at things, you almost always failed.
Hero - The game for people who thought GURPS was too light on rules. I couldn't get past character creation, myself. Another guy runs a game of it here, but even the crunchiest min/maxer in the group finds the system too complicated.
Mutants and Masterminds - Sure, its lighter and more focused than Gurps or Hero, but I still have the problem that I can spend hours stating up the same guy by interpreting powers slightly different ways that will get vastly different point totals - which makes me feel like character creation is more of a puzzle solving task than anything. I also don't care for the "balancing" thing were they offset max offense/defense values.
Shadowrun - I'm a CP2020 guy. I don't like fantasy in my sci-fi.
D20 Modern - What a dull and botched implementation of a decent concept.
Amber - I have the core book, and I think it's fantastic as a sourcebook. I have no interest at all in the actual game system. It just seems too "improvisational theater-troupe"-ish for my taste.
GURPS - After decades of buying the sourcebooks, my interest in the game itself hasn't budged an inch towards anything beyond apathy. It seems clunky and boring to me, and doesn't seem to fit any of the genres I like when it comes to RPGs. But man, those sourcebooks...the newer hardbacks - Space, Fantasy, Infinite Worlds - are brilliant.
TOON - I'm another one who could never see the appeal of playing out adventures in a Warner-Brothers-Looney-Tunes universe. I love those cartoons, but they're so rooted in the visuals and sound (especially the music by brilliant guys like Carl Stalling) that it makes no sense to me to try to play them out.
Rifts - Reminds me of Gamma World but without the fun. Yeah, I know plenty of people think it's fun.
Shadowrun. Like the setting fine; the game mechanics leave me bewildered and irritated.
Same with WEG Star Wars. Good use of the Lucasfilm photo archives, but the system was shit and the game's attitude was pompous as all hell.
D&D. Even back when it was the only game in town, I kind of had problems with it. I thought stuff like Vancian magic and XP for gold was lame. I've never hated it, but I've never had a D&D game that I thought was amazing. As soon as other games started surfacing I got away from D&D as fast as I could.
Quote from: Professort Zoot;418904D&D every edition. I played it because too often it was all there was but the alignment system and the process of leveling just appall me. Runequest saved my life as a Role-Playing Gamer.
I feel very much the same... I've played it, I've ran it... but I never really liked it. Classes and levels and alignments seemed stupid to me from the first time I ever rolled up a character. Once I found Runequest I never looked back (though I've since relaxed a bit and can enjoy the occasional OSR game).
QuoteDelta Green. Probably would have been fine as a supernatural conspiracy game emulating the feel of theX-Files. Does not gibe with my sense of Lovecraftian terror at all.
Yeah, I share that one too... I understand the genesis of it as a CoC variant... to give the PCs a reason for being together and staying together... to 'modernize' the mythos. But I think it went too far into the X-files direction. There's still fun stuff to read and cool bits to steal for other games.
My list of what didn't "click" for me, oh and these are all games that I've actually particiupated in as a player.
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Played two to three sessions with same group of guys when I was a teenagere. Never felt 'great' or fun to me. That group stopped meeting after a while for several reasons. (A year later I felt bad for the DM - his best friend died in the WHO Concert stampede tragedy. )
CHAMPIONS: I liked the character sketch space and body outlimners on the character sheets. Thew actual game itself felt clunky and never quite came alive for me. Never had an immersion moment with it.
Rolemaster/Fill-In-The-Blank Law: One of the worst campaigns I was ever in. The group and the DM had wanted for years to do what they called "The Evil campaign". I hated the character sheet (It makes GURPS look easy) The DM also didn't run the combat and spells consistently. HATED that game system. Oh yeah, they gave me a pre-generated fire mage for that game. One of these days I will kill that group off as a bunch of NPCs in a GURPS:Fantasy game.
Dungeons & Dragons 4/e : Recent campaign I played in last year. Again, pre-generated character. Too much of the mechanics of the current D&D rely on knoledge or experiencve with videogames and MMORPG shit. I could tell because all the players at the table that seemed to like - also talked too much about their various MMO games and how oit was nice that it was so similiar. HATED that game system. Too many times it felt like a board game and we were just pushing miniatures around. The few times it felt immersive or like a real Role-playing game - one or two other players made noises like they thought things were being slowed down too much.
- Ed C.
Tunnels & Trolls. It has breadth, but no depth. I think it speaks volumes that the vast majority of modules - excuse me, "programmed adventures" - are almost to a one solo/choose your own adventure style.
Exalted. I've said enough about this elsewhere.
GURPS. I never, ever, ever felt like I was getting "into" any game. GURPS feudal japan? Shit, I can buy a book on Japan at the Friends of the Library store and use the Hero System...and so on.
Castles & Crusades. Kind of left me flat.
Dragon Quest. Rule Density != good game.
Deadlands. Didn't care for the setting, or the gimmicks.
Hackmaster. HURR HURR OLD D AND D IS TEH FUNNAY. Okay, guys, we get it.
RuneQuest. As much as I like (love!) Call of Cthulhu, this one does zilch for me. Nada. Zip.
Rolemaster. See Dragon Quest.
Middle Earth Role Playing system. See Rolemaster.
The Decipher Lord of the Rings RPG. I don't blame those guys (they can make a solid game), I blame Saul Zaentz and Christopher Tolkien. And New Line Cinema. Dull as dishwater.
Talislanta. BO-RING. "No Elves!" Yeah, no fun either.
Jorune. Weird for weird's sake sometimes just doesn't work.
Tekumel: Empire of the Petal Throne. Uh, Prof. Barker? If I was going to take the time to learn a foreign language just to play a game, I'd probably pick Japanese so I could get the super-cool art in the j-Battletech game. Or Das Schwarz Auge (going with German, obviously). It's one thing to introduce new cultural concepts in a game, it's another entirely to force me to digest all of them before I can play.
D&D 3.5: THEY'RE COMING OUT OF THE WALLS! AUGH! AUGH!
Traveller: Trig and more trig. Pass.
Lejendary Adventures...never did anything for me. Gary put a lot in to it, I know, but it's like he wanted to break so hard away from D&D that he left a lot of what made his earlier stuff (including Dangerous Journeys) so good in the dust.
2e AD&D. Yes, I know, structurally it's largely the same game as AD&D. But you know what? They stripped so much of AD&D's verve out, so much of the texture and context that made the AD&D rules such a thrill to just read that I don't care if it was "nearly identical" rules - the game is a huge leap away from what makes AD&D so damn great.
Shadowrun. For some reason or the other people ooh and ahh all about Shadowrun but I could never get in to it. The whole cross-genre thing (except for the occasional lark) just leaves me flat. That and "cyber-jargon" (and god knows Cyberpunk 2020 is just as guilty of this) is always so fucking forced, it's like banging two iron pans together right over my head when I have to read CHUMMER and CHOOMBA and DECKER and SLICERGIRL and oh god make it stooooooop...
There's a great many games I've seen that I have no interest in but I thought I'd stick to games I know by either reading or playing.
Shadowrun...
Anything with superhero type characters...
It doesn't mean I didn't like the games run for my group, it just means that there are a whole lot of other games I did click with a lot more.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;419206D&D 3.5: THEY'RE COMING OUT OF THE WALLS! AUGH! AUGH!
It's not as far from AD&D as one might think, though...
...
:D
Wild Talents
I wanted to like it, I mean I really wanted to like it. But in the end, the wonkiness of the mechanics killed any hope of a relationship between myself and the game.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;419206Tekumel: Empire of the Petal Throne. Uh, Prof. Barker? If I was going to take the time to learn a foreign language just to play a game, I'd probably pick Japanese so I could get the super-cool art in the j-Battletech game. Or Das Schwarz Auge (going with German, obviously). It's one thing to introduce new cultural concepts in a game, it's another entirely to force me to digest all of them before I can play.
You don't really have to learn Tsolyánu (or any other Tékumeli language) to play, that'd be stupid. And I am convinced that the best way to play Tékumel is to use the original EPT concept of "foreigners from a far-off land just arrived in Jakálla", so your character can mirror your own culture shock.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;4192062e AD&D. Yes, I know, structurally it's largely the same game as AD&D. But you know what? They stripped so much of AD&D's verve out, so much of the texture and context that made the AD&D rules such a thrill to just read that I don't care if it was "nearly identical" rules - the game is a huge leap away from what makes AD&D so damn great.
I got my start with AD&D 2e, and I didn't understand why people kept saying that, until I actually got to read AD&D 1e.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;419206Shadowrun. For some reason or the other people ooh and ahh all about Shadowrun but I could never get in to it. The whole cross-genre thing (except for the occasional lark) just leaves me flat. That and "cyber-jargon" (and god knows Cyberpunk 2020 is just as guilty of this) is always so fucking forced, it's like banging two iron pans together right over my head when I have to read CHUMMER and CHOOMBA and DECKER and SLICERGIRL and oh god make it stooooooop...
For what it's worth (and maybe someone who actually read the book can confirm this), I've heard that the latter edition cut down on the jargon considerably.
Quote from: The Butcher;419267For what it's worth (and maybe someone who actually read the book can confirm this), I've heard that the latter edition cut down on the jargon considerably.
It's almost entirely gone.
Paranoia: I don't like to be told that the game will contain demency. What's the point? Give me a serious setting and a genuinely poignant scene and I'll provide the demency. That's the whole point of demency (in all fairness, I do like "Ghostbusters").
Shadowrun: Either play cyberpunk straight, or play fantasy straight, or play RIFTS. Cyberpunk mixes so well with a lot of other genres (horror, psionics, supers, realistic space sci-fi, even voodoo) that having punk elves using Native American Animistic Magic to hack a megacorporation's core system just doesn't cut.
Ravenloft: "We are in a fantasy world, so... exactly... how a scare by a vampire is different from a scare by a 300 feet dragon?
Werewolf: I like WoD (in a conventional playing environment, no Halloween charades). Sue me. But, for some reason, being a Vampire, a Mage, a Ghost or even a Faerie interests me more than transforming into a furry beast. Personal tastes.
Anything "Ye Tombs & Serpents Olde Schoole, inspired ye smell of them books I liked so mucheth when I was in High-Schoole: just play with D&D Encyclopedia or AD&D 1E. There is the real thing out there, no need for "a remake for real of the real thing".
Quote from: Benoist;419216It's not as far from AD&D as one might think, though...
...
:D
You all saw it. He's trying to kill me.
Quote from: Reckall;419278Werewolf: I like WoD (in a conventional playing environment, no Halloween charades). Sue me. But, for some reason, being a Vampire, a Mage, a Ghost or even a Faerie interests me more than transforming into a furry beast. Personal tastes.
Old, new, or both?
Quote from: Reckall;419278Anything "Ye Tombs & Serpents Olde Schoole, inspired ye smell of them books I liked so mucheth when I was in High-Schoole: just play with D&D Encyclopedia or AD&D 1E. There is the real thing out there, no need for "a remake for real of the real thing".
You know, Tombs & Serpents is a killer name for a retro-clone. I can even picture the cover right now, an amateurish colored illustration of a beefy, Conanesque barbarian, sword in hand, locked in deadly struggle with a huge snake, while his companions, a cloaked rogue, a bearded wizard, and a female cleric with with long, blonde flowing hair and nice, round tits under a mail hauberk watch in the background. :D
Quote from: The Butcher;419281Old, new, or both?
Strictly old. I don't like the new WoD at all.
An appendix to "What Never Really Clicked for Me" related to the old WoD: the truly horrifc tales that introduced the books. "Horrific" for any editor, I mean. Not only they were the very pinnacle of "wannabeism", but WW, for some reason, printed them in retina-ripping fonts - either "gothic" or "caligraphic". For someone interested in the book/game these tales had the stopping power of a 88mm Tiger gun.
I remember liking one of them, in a "Wraith" book. It was such an unusual occourrence that I actually remind the plot (it involved a beaten wife, with a good plot twist at the end) - whereas with some collection of genuinely good tales I maybe remind the collection's title. Life is unfair.
Burning Games: I really, really, wanted to like these. In fact, I've run it for two different campaigns, and attempted to play a third. There are just so many good ideas in there, and I've stolen quite a lot, but the games themselves I never can make work. It dies under its own crunch.
Fate 3.0: Another system I wanted to love. Mostly, the way Aspects works rankles me. I will say that I've just gotten done reading the Fate-ish book by John Wick, Houses of the Blooded, and the system feels like Fate done right; very clear examples and rules for using Aspects. At least to me. We'll see if I ever get to play the thing...
Burning Wheel: see D&D 3.0/3.5 below.
D&D 3.0/3.5: i wanted to like this so badly, as it's all i could get people to play for the longest time, but it was so unnecessarily fiddly that i just couldn't enjoy it, no matter how hard i tried.
Burning 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.
Fate - It always seems like it's a big metagame exercise that completely obliterates character immersion. As one of my players says, it's like someone merged RPGs and Object Oriented Programming, two things that never ever should be combined. It's like trying to translate my thoughts into a foreign language then back again rather than just playing.
Quote from: Mencelus;419486Burning Games: I really, really, wanted to like these. In fact, I've run it for two different campaigns, and attempted to play a third. There are just so many good ideas in there, and I've stolen quite a lot, but the games themselves I never can make work. It dies under its own crunch.
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.
It's one of those games that I wouldn't mind playing, but don't really feel up to running (or at least that I wouldn't do the best job compared to other games.) The game itself isn't as dense as its presentation, but it struck me as a game ripe for tinkering with more than playing right out of the box, and if I'm tinkering with a game, I'd prefer to start with a lighter framework. I'd like to play with some of its ideas in another context though.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;419710Fate - It always seems like it's a big metagame exercise that completely obliterates character immersion. As one of my players says, it's like someone merged RPGs and Object Oriented Programming, two things that never ever should be combined. It's like trying to translate my thoughts into a foreign language then back again rather than just playing.
Yeah, I've used that OOP analogy for Fate too.
I do have issues with Fate but I've not written it off quite yet. If nothing else it's still one of the few systems that tries to define characters as more than just a bag of abilities and skills. That said I am not impressed with the the way the Fate rules are getting crunchier and crunchier with each iteration.
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.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;420222I'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.
Thank you. And I got my impression of Amber Diceless in the worst possible way. I shelled out cash for it . . .
Did you play it?
Well, this has quickly devolved from "games I wanted to like that forever reason just don't click with me" to "games I hate".
Quote from: TristramEvans;420321Well, this has quickly devolved from "games I wanted to like that forever reason just don't click with me" to "games I hate".
And of course "You're wrong for not getting it, let me tell you how you're wrong and why it should click for you."
Quote from: thedungeondelver;420353And of course "You're wrong for not getting it, let me tell you how you're wrong and why it should click for you."
Yes,
People get VERY attached to and fond of games that they really like and enjoy. This means they get naturally protective and defensive about them - they want to respond vigorously.
Thats why I have restrained my natural impulse to respond to at least 4 posts in this thread.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420284Did you play it?
Four different aborted campaigns and I kinda sorta ran it myself in a fifth campaign where I implemented a bunch of dice rolling mechanics. Two campaigns ended with the stat auction (all different players except for myself and I wasn't involved in either Psyche {? can't recall the stat names anymore} auction). Each time two players decided they each wanted her/his character to have the top Psyche score and would not stop upping the bidding. Saw only one out of the four character builds, the player had sold all his other stats down to human norm levels. had no Pattern, Sorcery or Trump abilities and essentially agreed to develop the entire game world for the GM in exchange for points. One game ended because none of the players ever acted publically, each attempting to remain a hidden figure in the shadows. The last of the four ended when four out of six players walked away in frustration upon discovering that the Courts of Chaos' most minor characters overshadowed all the Amberites of their generation. My radically altered campaign lasted about a dozen sessions then ended by mutual agreement that we would all rather be playing Ars Magica.
Quote from: Professort Zoot;420363Four different aborted campaigns and I kinda sorta ran it myself in a fifth campaign where I implemented a bunch of dice rolling mechanics.
Aaaaaaaargh!
I recall one mail exchange with the Wuj when he complained about people not understanding the diceless thing. :D Sorry, I had to mention that ;)
QuoteTwo campaigns ended with the stat auction (all different players except for myself and I wasn't involved in either Psyche {? can't recall the stat names anymore} auction). Each time two players decided they each wanted her/his character to have the top Psyche score and would not stop upping the bidding. Saw only one out of the four character builds, the player had sold all his other stats down to human norm levels.
GM's fault. Wuj expressively mentions in the rules that buying down an attribute to (Human) is NOT advisable... one quote from the book:
Kevin: So, what do you think?
GM: I think it looks really bad.
Kevin: What's wrong?
GM: Well, for starters, you're going down to Human in both Strength and Warfare. As far as I'm concerned, that's suicide for your character.Quotehad no Pattern, Sorcery or Trump abilities and essentially agreed to develop the entire game world for the GM in exchange for points.
If Wuj had had something like that in mind, there would have been no need for the attribute auction, shadow and artifact creation. That's a loophole the player discovered, alright, but it's the GM's fricking DUTY to disallow that.
By the by, we had one character that spent all of his 100 points on... Good Stuff :) He was real fun, like a rumbling, bumbling Jackie Chan, but without the skills :D
QuoteOne game ended because none of the players ever acted publically, each attempting to remain a hidden figure in the shadows.
Again, that's not the fault of the rules, but of the GM. The rules don't encourage that behavior, at all.
QuoteThe last of the four ended when four out of six players walked away in frustration upon discovering that the Courts of Chaos' most minor characters overshadowed all the Amberites of their generation.
I understand that frustration, but this also has nothing to do with the rules. No rule told the GM to use the attribute values he used. His decision, his game. And, obviously, it was crap.
Man, I wouldn't wanna play in those groups, either.
All I can say is no game works if it's run by an idiot...
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420375Aaaaaaaargh!
I recall one mail exchange with the Wuj when he complained about people not understanding the diceless thing. :D Sorry, I had to mention that ;)
It's the designer's mission to make sure potential players understand "the diceless thing." If people aren't getting it, it needs better explaining.
cyberpunk 3. Unfortunately we don't need to say anymore about what could have been.
Quote from: ColonelHardisson;420406It's the designer's mission to make sure potential players understand "the diceless thing." If people aren't getting it, it needs better explaining.
The Amber Diceless rulebook is *packed* with examples of diceless play. Can't get any better than that, really.
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420442The Amber Diceless rulebook is *packed* with examples of diceless play. Can't get any better than that, really.
Yeah, you can, if people who've read that book and in some cases have owned it for going on twenty years (me) are saying there is a disconnect.
EDIT: And falling back on the old canard of "well, you're just not intellectually equipped to understand it" just doesn't wash.
Quote from: ColonelHardisson;420458Yeah, you can, if people who've read that book and in some cases have owned it for going on twenty years (me) are saying there is a disconnect.
EDIT: And falling back on the old canard of "well, you're just not intellectually equipped to understand it" just doesn't wash.
I dunno, 20 years is a long time. I understand Amber not being someone's cup of tea, it's certainly not mine, but what about it is causing a disconnect? Do you not understand the system? Not understand how it's supposed to be played? Is the setting confusing to you?
I mean, Amber isn't Nobilis, it's actually a pretty straightforward rulesbook.
Quote from: Koltar;420359Thats why I have restrained my natural impulse to respond to at least 4 posts in this thread.
Same here (fewer posts though).
Quote from: TristramEvans;420462I dunno, 20 years is a long time. I understand Amber not being someone's cup of tea, it's certainly not mine, but what about it is causing a disconnect? Do you not understand the system? Not understand how it's supposed to be played? Is the setting confusing to you?
I mean, Amber isn't Nobilis, it's actually a pretty straightforward rulesbook.
I understand how it is supposed to be played (at least, I believe I do, from reading the examples of play). What I don't understand is why it bothers with a rule system for that kind of play. I don't see what the game rules actually add in value for the cost of the overhead. It seems a convoluted way to come around to the GM deciding if the player's efforts were enough to win or not.
Right on the back of the book, it says it's a "Time Consuming" system. I can agree with that. I just don't get why it's so time consuming when everything about it really just seems like a big game of "GM May I?". It seems to me you could ignore the majority of the rule system and not only will the game not be harmed, but it might actually be the better for it.
So either I'm really missing something about the rules (which I'm perfectly willing to accept as the case), or the rules are rather pointless (which I am equally willing to accept). Either way, it doesn't "click" for me at all.
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420375Aaaaaaaargh!
I recall one mail exchange with the Wuj when he complained about people not understanding the diceless thing. :D Sorry, I had to mention that ;)
GM's fault. Wuj expressively mentions in the rules that buying down an attribute to (Human) is NOT advisable... one quote from the book:
Kevin: So, what do you think?
GM: I think it looks really bad.
Kevin: What's wrong?
GM: Well, for starters, you're going down to Human in both Strength and Warfare. As far as I'm concerned, that's suicide for your character.
If Wuj had had something like that in mind, there would have been no need for the attribute auction, shadow and artifact creation. That's a loophole the player discovered, alright, but it's the GM's fricking DUTY to disallow that.
By the by, we had one character that spent all of his 100 points on... Good Stuff :) He was real fun, like a rumbling, bumbling Jackie Chan, but without the skills :D
Again, that's not the fault of the rules, but of the GM. The rules don't encourage that behavior, at all.
I understand that frustration, but this also has nothing to do with the rules. No rule told the GM to use the attribute values he used. His decision, his game. And, obviously, it was crap.
Man, I wouldn't wanna play in those groups, either.
All I can say is no game works if it's run by an idiot...
I understand a good GM can make any game work and a bad GM can ruin any game and poor play can ruin any game; some games though cause special difficulties. I don't really like the setting/concept of Amber as a game; I hate excessive arbitrary decision making on the GM's part; my experiences of five games with five different GMs (including myself, but I imposed a shitload of dice rolling mechanics before running it) the other four of whom I respect as decent GMs (make no claims for my own skills) saw total trainwrecks in eighty percent of the games and a gradual loss of interest in the remainder.
Game play examples from the texts suggested things like how the top Warfare stat holder could not be taken in by an invisible foe because he might just casually assume there is always an invisible attacker and move to counter it as a tactical exercise, I can't reconcile that with Corwin's victory over Benedict. Zelazny's source material clearly encourages internecine conflict, but in the rules you either simply say X loses instantly or you see if you can appeal to the GM to let an impossible victory occur. The very discussions I have seen about the development of the diceless philosophy leave me cold: preferring to avoid the objectivity of the dice in order to make a personal appeal to the GM (which is what it boils down to), makes the primary "game" mechanic sycophancy.
Quote from: Professort Zoot;420758Game play examples from the texts suggested things like how the top Warfare stat holder could not be taken in by an invisible foe because he might just casually assume there is always an invisible attacker and move to counter it as a tactical exercise, I can't reconcile that with Corwin's victory over Benedict. Zelazny's source material clearly encourages internecine conflict, but in the rules you either simply say X loses instantly or you see if you can appeal to the GM to let an impossible victory occur. The very discussions I have seen about the development of the diceless philosophy leave me cold: preferring to avoid the objectivity of the dice in order to make a personal appeal to the GM (which is what it boils down to), makes the primary "game" mechanic sycophancy.
Utter nonsense. The rules do NOT say "x loses instantly".
And I love the constant use of the "Benedict example" as a way to say that Amber is broken. Its like saying D&D is broken because a 1st level wizard wouldn't be able to beat Elminster in a magical duel.
RPGPundit
Word, Pundit.
It amazes me that critics are still using the "the rules don't mirror the books" argument. After all, Zelazny himself okeyed the rules -- Wuj wrote about it in one of the first five Amberzines (if I remember correctly). That's good enough for me.
Perhaps it is wrong to think of them as critics. Think of them as people who want a game that models the books more closely than Amber does.
You know, I really love transhumanist science fantasy with horror elements, but Cthulhutech is fetish fuel, mildly and obliviously racist, and doesn't seem to offer a very interesting take on the Cthulhu mythos either. Also, the authorial voice used is very apparent and is kind of a pretentious dick.
I read it with pretty high hopes earlier today, since 4chan and RPG.net talk about it pretty frequently. Total disappointment. The setting is weird enough that it deserves a "Cthulhutech WTF?" thread to pick apart. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like so-so military mecha gaming with tentacle rape camps (seriously) in the background.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;421120The setting is weird enough that it deserves a "Cthulhutech WTF?" thread to pick apart. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like so-so military mecha gaming with tentacle rape camps (seriously) in the background.
The idea had potential, in theory.
It failed to live up to that with horrible rules, and general tittering of the authors. My opinion is the authors seem to have written the game after getting high, and watching some anime (Robotech, and hentai it seems.) In a single furious weekend. Then didn't feel a need to vet the mechanics, fact check it for some things, or just about anything else a good game should have done to it. They had more money than sense to put behind it--and it got them sales because of the idea, and artwork. Enough to put out supplements to continue the mess.
Quote from: Norbert G. Matausch;420991Word, Pundit.
It amazes me that critics are still using the "the rules don't mirror the books" argument. After all, Zelazny himself okeyed the rules -- Wuj wrote about it in one of the first five Amberzines (if I remember correctly). That's good enough for me.
He didn't just ok the books; Zelazny and Erick had a good working relationship and full information exchange. It was not like most licenses where the author or company holding the license just puts a rubber stamp on "yeah, whatever", or issue a list of demands but don't really get what's going on. Zelazny was quite familiar with the whole of the game, and ended up even playing it.
RPGPundit
I love Amber I think its the best RPG ever written.
I do think that Erick doesn't give enough annotated examples of play. By Annotated I mean where the GM's thinking is clearly explained through use of examples.
I also think that the level of superhuman-ness in the game is much greater than you get in the books. For example Amberites are not generally much smarter than humans. There are plenty of times in the books when you as the reader see that the Amberites can be easily tricked and fooled. They are smart and devious but no smarter or more devious than Machiavelli, Wallsingham or Danny Ocean. Liekwise Benedict int eh first 5 books is simply the greatest warrior in the universe. He can be beaten given luck cunning or force of numbers. Lintra cuts off his arm, Corwin could have killed him, Brand outsmarts him. This is very difficult to see as possible from the RAW. Brand shoudl be abel to handle multiple oppentns with ease, He should realise from Corwin;s actions that Corwin wants to lure him onto the grass for a reason and that reason is likely to be a tactical advantage, and he should have been tactically aware that Brand represented a magical or supernatural threat that should be eliminated at range. No expereinced RPGer woudl have fallen for any of those ploys and we are only human.
My final Criticism is that a number of traits get merged becuase of the books. So warfare covers swordmanship and tactics. These two do not have to be agregated, its only becuase Benedict is top in both that they become entwined. Likewise Strength and hand to hand fighting (and don;t get me started on Warfare and aikido :) )
But Amber's strength is that despite these flaws it shines. Shines with the richest depest Roleplaying experience you can have. The rules can be changed easily, the rules really are very lightweight and you could summarise the core mechanics in a paragraph. The attribute auction is one of the singular best things in the history of RPGs.
But the settign is the killer. Wel the way the setting and the game just work together. Despite all of Amber's flaws sas I noted above you can create some of the best games with it.
For those that doubt I invite you to a game at the next GenCon. I ran a game this year just gone and it was fantastic.
Quote from: Silverlion;421159The idea had potential, in theory.
It failed to live up to that with horrible rules, and general tittering of the authors. My opinion is the authors seem to have written the game after getting high, and watching some anime (Robotech, and hentai it seems.) In a single furious weekend. Then didn't feel a need to vet the mechanics, fact check it for some things, or just about anything else a good game should have done to it. They had more money than sense to put behind it--and it got them sales because of the idea, and artwork. Enough to put out supplements to continue the mess.
Someone on RPG.net said it was the new Rifts. First as tragedy, then as farce...
Quote from: jibbajibba;421255But Amber's strength is that despite these flaws it shines. Shines with the richest depest Roleplaying experience you can have. The rules can be changed easily, the rules really are very lightweight and you could summarise the core mechanics in a paragraph. The attribute auction is one of the singular best things in the history of RPGs.
Absolutely.
And again and again, Amber Diceless brings out the best in players. Just one example: One of my best friends happens also to be one of my players. He's a severe case of dyslexia. He has problems filling out a character sheet. But when we play Amber, he fills PAGES UPON PAGES with his character diary. Not one, and I mean, NOT ONE game has ever had a similar effect on my players.
Yes, the sheer levels of notes, private messages, emails and phone calls that I get from Amber players during the downtime between our games, which is just unbelievably huge compared to any other game I run, is proof of Amber's genius.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;420983Utter nonsense. The rules do NOT say "x loses instantly".
And I love the constant use of the "Benedict example" as a way to say that Amber is broken. Its like saying D&D is broken because a 1st level wizard wouldn't be able to beat Elminster in a magical duel.
RPGPundit
D&D is broken for a lot of reasons, that's not one of them. I used the Corwin vs. Benedict example simply to show that the world Wujcik was simulating did not reflect his absolutist insistence on the stats. Obviously Zelazny simply decided and narrated events, that's why it was a novel; Wujcik's game appalls
me as a game, that much authority on the part of a GM doesn't mean a bad game, but it makes certain types of bad games far more likely.
Quote from: Professort Zoot;421885D&D is broken for a lot of reasons, that's not one of them. I used the Corwin vs. Benedict example simply to show that the world Wujcik was simulating did not reflect his absolutist insistence on the stats. Obviously Zelazny simply decided and narrated events, that's why it was a novel; Wujcik's game appalls me as a game, that much authority on the part of a GM doesn't mean a bad game, but it makes certain types of bad games far more likely.
It also makes absolutely incredible games more likely. And I can tell you that every single campaign of Amber I've ever run has been absolutely incredible, even the bad ones.
The game does require a skilled GM. Its boot camp for the absolutely the "elite force" of GMs. Just reading Amber will make you a better GM at any other game. Actually running it will make you an excellent GM at any other game. That's not a bug, its a fucking masterpiece.
RPGPundit
Cthulhutech definitely needs a WTF Cthulhutech thread. Cumbersome and bizarre mechanics tied to a setting that is at the same time unoriginal and embarrassing to talk about in mixed company. I don't think that IMR should have shafted WildFire out of their money for a solid year, but Cthulhutech is frankly pretty dumb.
Fundamentally, the idea of putting monsters from 1920s science fiction into contemporary science fiction is not new or interesting. People were literally doing that in the 1920s. Hell, people were doing it in the 1970s too (watch Heavy Metal if you don't believe me).
Cthulhutech is about as original and compelling as Dracula 3000 or Leprechaun 4.
-Frank
Pundit, I hereby confer this badge of honor on you:
(http://abenteuerzentrale.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/amberforce.jpg)
All Hail Amber.
Since when is this thread about "why this game should really have clicked with you, and since it didn't, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?"
:huhsign:
Quote from: Benoist;422256Since when is this thread about "why this game should really have clicked with you, and since it didn't, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?"
Since people got involved. Sigh.
Seanchai
So when is that Cthulutech WTF? thread going up - because I'd love to read that (not having read the book myself).
Quote from: jgants;422264So when is that Cthulutech WTF? thread going up - because I'd love to read that (not having read the book myself).
When is it? Right Now! (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=422356#post422356)
-Frank
Quote from: RPGPundit;422084It also makes absolutely incredible games more likely. And I can tell you that every single campaign of Amber I've ever run has been absolutely incredible, even the bad ones.
The game does require a skilled GM. Its boot camp for the absolutely the "elite force" of GMs. Just reading Amber will make you a better GM at any other game. Actually running it will make you an excellent GM at any other game. That's not a bug, its a fucking masterpiece.
RPGPundit
Every decent game in any system requires a skilled GM. Amber seems also to require a certain gormless acceptance on the part of the other players. I don't game with people who can't GM (some of them need a push and some practice, but people who aren't interested in GMing or have some sort of GMing oriented social dysfunction are politely invited to go elsewhere). Amber does not work well for such a group, and from my experience is repulsive to people who do work well in such a group.
IHATETHERAILROAD[/i] and you can't get off the tracks in Amber.
Quote from: Professort Zoot;422360Every decent game in any system requires a skilled GM. Amber seems also to require a certain gormless acceptance on the part of the other players. I don't game with people who can't GM (some of them need a push and some practice, but people who aren't interested in GMing or have some sort of GMing oriented social dysfunction are politely invited to go elsewhere). Amber does not work well for such a group, and from my experience is repulsive to people who do work well in such a group. IHATETHERAILROAD[/i] and you can't get off the tracks in Amber.
Rarely do I get stunned by a comment on games .
WTF!!!!!
Amber is the most open, least railroad games I have ever GMed. The PCs can litterally wonder off into entire universes of their creation at will and do whatever they like. There are an almost unlimited number of options to deal with any issue.
But more than any of that the core of the game it's nugget if you will is that the GM just sets up the setting (in fact I even let my PCs create their own version of Amber) and then the players create all the plot, metaplot, deals, bargains, double crosses...
My Amber games have a core plot. If the Pcs fix it they get xp however each player also creates their own 3 plot aims that they get Xp for if they reach. Most of the time these sub-plots drive the game and I just get the fuck out of the way and run a few NPCs, more often than not NPCs that the players have themselves created either though play or in the chargen process.
If you think Amber is a railroad then well ... um actually I am speechless.
Quote from: jibbajibba;422415If you think Amber is a railroad then well ... um actually I am speechless.
I have also found that Amber lends itself to being hugely PC driven - Amberites are stereotypically driven by ambition so the game lends itself to the players being proactive. NPCs are usually "live on the field," yes, but the setup is so little focused on 'missions' or 'outside threats' that there is (even less so than in normal games) really no
point in railroading.
Yeah, there's nothing more I can say about this guy's idiocy than "sheer nonsense".
RPGPundit
Quote from: Doctor Jest;420525I understand how it is supposed to be played (at least, I believe I do, from reading the examples of play). What I don't understand is why it bothers with a rule system for that kind of play. I don't see what the game rules actually add in value for the cost of the overhead. It seems a convoluted way to come around to the GM deciding if the player's efforts were enough to win or not.
I understand what you mean, though here's my how I look at the matter: the player GM relationship is one based on trust. the more that the results of Player's decisions depend upon GM caveat, the more trust is needed. Rules create a "trust buffer" if you will. A player in D&D, for example, will know that the rules and systems work a specific way and can rely on that to determine their success, and even have a method of disputing with GM's calls based on cimplementation of the rules. In other words, the more rules that are established, the more in control of their own character a player feels, as opposed to simply being at the mercy of a GM's story or whims. The problem I have with alot of Froge Narrativist games is that they try to solve one problem (lack of trust between GM and Players) with a solution that is contrary to the probelm: rules-light systems open to a lot of interpretation. Narrativist games think that leaving the interpretation up to the players will compensate for this imbalance, but instead it creates a story-game, which whil I don't think is badwrongfun as some do, is a situation that is directly opposed to player immersion.
Amber OTOH, does not redistribute the GM's responsibility of rules interpretation, but it does try to provide a rules light gaming enviornment with enough structure that players feel "in control" of their characters and their character's ability to affect the game world.
QuoteEither way, it doesn't "click" for me at all.
That's perfectly fine; same here. I generally in all ways prefer
Everway for that style of gaming.
Quote from: jibbajibba;422415Rarely do I get stunned by a comment on games .
WTF!!!!!
Amber is the most open, least railroad games I have ever GMed. The PCs can litterally wonder off into entire universes of their creation at will and do whatever they like. There are an almost unlimited number of options to deal with any issue.
But more than any of that the core of the game it's nugget if you will is that the GM just sets up the setting (in fact I even let my PCs create their own version of Amber) and then the players create all the plot, metaplot, deals, bargains, double crosses...
My Amber games have a core plot. If the Pcs fix it they get xp however each player also creates their own 3 plot aims that they get Xp for if they reach. Most of the time these sub-plots drive the game and I just get the fuck out of the way and run a few NPCs, more often than not NPCs that the players have themselves created either though play or in the chargen process.
If you think Amber is a railroad then well ... um actually I am speechless.
But everything comes down to asking, "mother may I" since the mechanism is deterministic. It's either, "No, you don't have that potential," "Yes, that's part of your character build," "No, unless you give daddy some sugar." There's (and again I am sure that a good GM can overcome this, but probably can't overcome my prejudice) no sense of achieving things gradually or changing direction. Also, if a character pulls a Corwin and goes off and creates Avalon and does not interact with Amber any more, it would seem to simply remove the character from play.
Not at all! There are two ways that could be handled. Many GMs would bring the play to the character, and this might obviously make sense if the character is very tied up with affairs in Amber. Its suggested that perhaps Brand or Eric might have had something to do with Corwin's undoing in Avalon.
The second idea is to interpret that as meaning that PC wants to play in his shadow, and let him. I've had players write fucking BOOKS of setting detail about their pet shadows (seriously, like 50-100 pages in some cases), and when a PC decides to stay in a far off shadow what I usually do is develop that shadow. I trust that sooner or later, either the PC himself or the other PCs will end up dragging him back to Amber, but I'd be in no hurry to do that. What for? That's part of the awesomeness that is the Amber game.
RPGPundit
Usually the way it works, I find, is one PC comes to the 'hermit' PC and proposes an offer that's hard to resist. This strikes me as similar to the way the family works in the books.
Quote from: Cole;422939Usually the way it works, I find, is one PC comes to the 'hermit' PC and proposes an offer that's hard to resist. This strikes me as similar to the way the family works in the books.
Precisely my experience.
RPGPundit