With every new edition of DnD, I try to like it in order to rejoin the mass of my fellow gamers. But I just couldn't bring myself to like 3.x (too crunchy and too much dungeonpunk) or 4e (combat takes way too long and overshadows other aspects of the game).
So what game have you tried to love but just couldn't? (Proviso:you've actually tried the game.)
Unhallowed Metropolis.
Great art, interesting setting, but...uninspiring system and a lack of "this is what you do with the game" meant that I sold this off after reading it.
Rune. It sounded like such a fun and original game idea and who doesn't like Vikings? In play it was a whole new level of awful.
(Not a game specifically).
- 3E/3.5E era Forgotten Realms
- 4E post-spellplague Forgotten Realms
- Pathfinder's Golarion
I wanted to like these settings, but they all largely fell flat for me after awhile.
Hollow Earth Expedition. It has some of the best art I've ever seen, but every time I look at it I just think about how I'd rather rewrite the setting and use another system. Beyond that, like far too much neo pulp, it is set in the 1930's and features Nazis as bad guys (boring and done).
I have been lucky so far, I have yet to play a game I didn't like. Keep in mind my desire to be entertained is very strong...I saw Æon Flux in theaters three times before I realized how bad it was.:)
Red Dwarf, best Sci Fi setting ever but the system is so awful!
D&D 3
WotC fooled me into liking this game from the previews. The biggest disappointment I ever got from a game.
Sovereign Stone
I still like the system to this day but totally disliked the setting. If that game was a generic fantasy game it would probably have become my go-to game, back then.
Earthdawn
I was so looking forward to what the company behind Shadowrun would come up with, fantasy-wise.
Nobilis - The triumph of style over substance
Shadowrun 4e - The modifiers and bonuses in firefights require complete reworking; computer are unwieldy; magic is extremely easy to abuse
Pathfinder - Just 3.x with a few minor changes. Not enough of a change to interest me.
Exalted - Became too anime-influenced, other influences dropped out
CthulhuTech--enormous wasted opportunity
Unhallowed Metropolis--seemed right up my alley, but no.
Serenity, Supernatural--any of the nifty licenses saddled to that butt-stupid Cotex system
Burning Wheel--I don't hate it, but I wanted to like it.
Savage Worlds--I like it for skirmish, but I don't like roleplaying with it.
Shadowrun--I had a little fun with this, because I was in a couple really fun groups. But the game itself never grabbed me.
Earthdawn
I love the concept and the setting, but I just couldn't deal with the system.
Whispering Vault
Cool setting with some annoying holes and an innovative system that unfortunately turns supposedly bad-ass PCs into chumps.
Spaceship Zero
Great gonzo comedic 1950s sci-fi meets Cthulhu, but the PCs were so incompetent that my players got fed up.
Savage Worlds for me. I read the quickstart and kind of like the gist of it, but the actual rulebook was about as engaging and interesting as an algebra textbook.
Shadowrun, in every version ( I actually tried to play 1st and 3rd). Excellent setting (every time), horrible system (every time).
RPGPundit
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;449403Exalted - Became too anime-influenced, other influences dropped out
Agreed. For the exact same reason.
Deadlands... because I was expecting Western horror and got Steampunk mixed with Blazing Saddles instead.
Savage Worlds... because it isn't really all that Savage after all.
Earthdawn... because I like the setting/ideas but the system keeps getting in the way.
Savage Worlds is another one for me. I really wanted to like it, read the original book and all... I just don't "get" what's so cool about it. I like the Savage World of Solomon Kane, and would run it, but I can't say I'm particularly enthused by the system itself.
Over the Edge - Liked the mystery and the interesting (if unrealistic) nature of the setting, but the system SO didn't fly for me. Over course over at TBP, there were people singing its praises, and I just had to roll my eyes.
Savage Worlds - Many people I game with really dig this system, but to me, it's not intolerable, but for any game I would want to play with it, I could think of a better system.
D&D in all its ugly incarnations.
Earthdawn. Because it is Earthdawn.
Amber. Because it's diceless and an utter mess of "Talk the GM into giving you what you want".
D&D 3.0e, 3.5e and 4e. D&D isn't perfect, but for the most part, I like it for what it is. I'm OK with houseruling it to better fit your ideas, but if I wanted a comprehensive skill system like 3.5e's, I'd rather be playing Runequest. If you want everyone to be a combat monster right from the start, more power to you, but I feel there are games better suited to this. I'll play any of these gladly, but if I'm running D&D, I'm certainly going for an earlier edition, or another system entirely.
Exalted. I was promised The Iliad and given fucking Dragonball Z. And dice pools above 10 every now and then I can deal with, but regularly chucking 35+ dice and counting for successes gets old, real fast.
Iron Heroes. So much promise. Such catastrophic execution. Was any of this actually playtested?
Castles & Crusades. The basic idea is solid, but the end result is a game which is, as many have already remarked in this very forum, neither fish nor fowl. Also, the Cleric being a better trap-spotter than the Rogue is just wrong. And did the Barbarian really need a boost, Trolls? Really?
Unhallowed Metropolis. All style, and precious little substance.
FATE 3.0e. Aspects are a clever, clever idea. I love it that you can whip up a full-fledged character in five minutes. But it still feels too damn abstract for me.
Quote from: The Butcher;449476Iron Heroes. So much promise. Such catastrophic execution. Was any of this actually playtested?
Do you know about IH Revised (http://www.lulu.com/product/hardcover/iron-heroes-revised/1305515)?
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;449466Over the Edge - Liked the mystery and the interesting (if unrealistic) nature of the setting, but the system SO didn't fly for me. Over course over at TBP, there were people singing its praises, and I just had to roll my eyes.
I'm curious to know what about the system didn't work for you. I definitely roll my eyes at the suggestion that it -- or
any system, for that matter -- can do "anything," but I think OtE is very good at what it sets out to do.
Quote from: Dan Davenport;449489I'm curious to know what about the system didn't work for you. I definitely roll my eyes at the suggestion that it -- or any system, for that matter -- can do "anything," but I think OtE is very good at what it sets out to do.
In short, it was the system that made me decide that "define on the spot" or "roll your own" traits are untenable. The borders of PC abilities are entirely too fuzzy for my comfort.
I shall chime in on the Savage Worlds disappointment. I really wanted to like it, as at the time I wanted both a rules-light, minis-inspired RPG, and a "make your own minis" system.
But the system accomplishes neither. It's too bare-bones for an RPG, and too clunky for a miniatures wargame. And the cards and other folderol were just awkward and unnecessary.
I also wish I liked Shadowrun more than I do, because of the CP games, I think it's the only one that gets the decking system right, but damn if the whole hackneyed fantasy grafting doesn't grate on my every time.
I've also basically decided that I don't like D&D outside of video games. I had a blast with the Neverwinter Nights series, I really did, but by and large my experience with the game outside of that context is that the game just doesn't work when a computer isn't doing the math, and the artificiality of the game constraints I find both hard to roleplay around, and increasingly boring the more I play.
There's only so many times you can play the cleric, before you realize it's given you all the gameplay it ever will. It's too formulaic, and the alternative of multi-classing too book-keeping heavy and counter-intuitive.
So no more D&D for me.
I looked through my collection and found no games that I really wanted to like but couldn't.
If I didn't like them, I didn't buy them.
I did sell my entire Rolemaster collection after the company collapsed in 2001.
As part of SWAG I was gifted a copy of Jadeclaw in 2004, however sold it at the GenCon auction in 2007. There was nothing inherently wrong with it, Playing and running games about intelligent furry talking mammals just didn't appeal to me.
nWoD. I think the Vampire setting is better, but every other setting is much worse. And the nWoD combat rules suck.
Quote from: hanszurcher;449388I have been lucky so far, I have yet to play a game I didn't like. Keep in mind my desire to be entertained is very strong...I saw Æon Flux in theaters three times before I realized how bad it was.:)
Wait! There was one game that does fit that...
The Lords of Creation. It sounded so cool, just never clicked.
D&D3.0/3.5/Pathfinder - If I wanted a game where the build forums outnumber the RP ones, I'd play a MMOG.
D&D4e - Ditto, plus everything else that has been said 1000 times.
Shadowrun 4 - Ditto again. Plus get your goddamn Transhumanism out of my Cyberpunk!
Savage Worlds - Great miniatures skirmish system for Deadlands. RPG on it's own? Bleah.
WFRP3 - This one I really wanted to like, I still do. At some point, I might attempt to rip out it's rotten narrative spine.
All Flesh Must Be Eaten...maybe Unisystem as a whole (this is the only Unisystem game I've played)?
I don't have an active hate for the game, it just felt limp and bland at the table in a way no other game I've ever run has.
The book reads very well, I love the zombie creation rules...the whole thing seems very sleek. But in play, the system either felt boring and repetitive (my fiance's complaint) or overly fiddly in some areas (and in a way that doesn't really seem to jive with the abstraction of the system as a whole imo).
I keep getting tempted by Witchcraft, but my experience with AFMBE holds me back.
Hackmaster basic. For something called basic, it was very complicated, and not clone-ish of AD&D as I had hoped.
Heroquest. I got 1e a while back and I've tried to read it a few times, but I'm both puzzled and unexcited by prospect of playing it. Part of this is due to lack of good benchmarks on abilities and challenges, part due to utter genericness of resolution, part due to anticipating problems in determining appropriate use of abilities and augments.
I'd seen an account of play where it was used for some sort of modern occult game of international intrigue, and that sounded pretty cool. Ironically, the author of the account later went on to say (http://jeregenest.livejournal.com/230086.html) that Heroquest sucks.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;449729I'd seen an account of play where it was used for some sort of modern occult game of international intrigue, and that sounded pretty cool. Ironically, the author of the account later went on to say (http://jeregenest.livejournal.com/230086.html) that Heroquest sucks.
Were they playing 1e? I heard that 2e cleans up a lot of the iffier parts and makes everything more clear.
I bought the PDF recently but haven't had a chance to really give it a thorough reading. It seems...different, but then the closest thing I've used to "story-logic" mechanics are BITs in BW, so my experience is limited.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;449496In short, it was the system that made me decide that "define on the spot" or "roll your own" traits are untenable. The borders of PC abilities are entirely too fuzzy for my comfort.
I definitely don't think they're "untenable," but I can definitely understand why they might not be to your taste. They definitely require cooperation between the player and GM in order to work.
Quote from: Peregrin;449731Were they playing 1e? I heard that 2e cleans up a lot of the iffier parts and makes everything more clear.
Yes, 1e of HQ. (Note, to avoid confusion:
not Hero Wars.)
2e does sound like it fixed some stuff, but then it also sounds like it added in some stuff I wouldn't like, so it's probably time to punt. The Mythic Russia game based on 1e sounded kind of interesting, and it might do a better job of contextualizing the numbers and abilities/traits (though I'm just guessing)...but ultimately, my problem isn't too few games and too much time on my hands. For something very roughly like what HQ seems to be trying to do, at least as a generic system, I'm pretty happy with Mythic.
Supers games in general. No supers game has ever scratched my itch.
Quote from: KenHR;449567I keep getting tempted by Witchcraft, but my experience with AFMBE holds me back.
You know you can download it legally for free, right? :)
Quote from: Dan Davenport;449764You know you can download it legally for free, right? :)
Yes, I have it. I just am not sure I want to run a game of it despite liking a lot about it from a reading because of my experience with AFMBE.
Quote from: KenHR;449775Yes, I have it. I just am not sure I want to run a game of it despite liking a lot about it from a reading because of my experience with AFMBE.
Ah, gotcha. Well, that's understandable. The system's designed to fade into the background, which can translate to it feeling too bland to some people.
That said, I think WitchCraft does a great job of making different supernatural powers have different feels mechanically.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;449496In short, it was the system that made me decide that "define on the spot" or "roll your own" traits are untenable. The borders of PC abilities are entirely too fuzzy for my comfort.
That's interesting, because to me OtE was one of the only RPGs of that type that I feel did it right.
RPGPundit
Amber Diceless. So good in theory, so crap in practice.
Too many :(
Mythus - Gygax's supposed masterpiece of the time. Excellent info, horrible system.
Starsiege - nice little system, atrociously small font and crammed layout makes reading tough. Couldn't really get into it.
Starblazer Adventures - good game, but too many stunts and special rules.
Conan OGL - awesome game, but I can't get past the whole d20 thing.
Earthdawn - cool races and background, but the system killed it. I also couldn't stop picturing elves with cybernetics since the art reminded me of Shadowrun.
And I agree with Pundit. OtE works really well, because the system disappears and the setting shines.
QuoteStarsiege - nice little system, atrociously small font and crammed layout makes reading tough. Couldn't really get into it.
My problem with StarSiege is that what I really wanted was something more like Stars Without Number, and what I got was Lala Land.
Quote from: J Arcane;449937My problem with StarSiege is that what I really wanted was something more like Stars Without Number, and what I got was Lala Land.
I know, right? I can't even specify where it went wrong, just that it added un-needed renames and increased complexity to the Siege "engine," and meandered around in circles with its writing.
I could add dozens to this list: D&D3E, D&D4E. Neither one scratched my itch for fantasy gaming. I didn't want to go "back" to the dungeon. Sure I've got dungeons in my D&D games, but most adventures were western fantasy based--all sorts of things outside the dungeon.
Everything from stopping rampaging monsters, to finding the lost ring of Amsoruil the Enchanter. All with an aim at greater impact on the world. I didn't want "dungeon heavy" or "dungeon only" play.
I wanted the classic fantasy that I'd had since I played basic D&D the first time.
Marvel Universe RPG, The abacus-stone driven one. Man what a waste. They should have bought the rights to the previous Marvel RPG's, or hired known designers. Instead it was developed in house with obviously too little playtesting. A nitpicky system where tracking battles of more than a few foes became a nightmare. What could have been a great idea--an RPG with art FROM the Marvel Comics company. A company who could use the RPG stats to stat the characters in there next Marvel Handbooks. Instead we got something without any elegance of design at all.
Quote from: One Horse Town;449759Supers games in general. No supers game has ever scratched my itch.
What do you need for one to do that? A backscratcher power?
Quote from: J Arcane;449498I've also basically decided that I don't like D&D outside of video games. I had a blast with the Neverwinter Nights series, I really did, but by and large my experience with the game outside of that context is that the game just doesn't work when a computer isn't doing the math, and the artificiality of the game constraints I find both hard to roleplay around, and increasingly boring the more I play.
There's only so many times you can play the cleric, before you realize it's given you all the gameplay it ever will. It's too formulaic, and the alternative of multi-classing too book-keeping heavy and counter-intuitive.
So no more D&D for me.
What's your preferred game for fantasy? GURPS?
Oh, mention of Marvel reminds me of Castle Falkenstein. Wanted to like the cards, wanted to like the setting. Have a generally positive impression of Mike Pondsmith as a designer. But as I've posted here a while back, I found the card system pretty nonfunctional on reading, and I wasn't too crazy about the setting either.
Quote from: Cole;450016What's your preferred game for fantasy? GURPS?
I do like GURPS for fantasy, but really I'm not big on the genre, never have been. My main interest in D&D was in the gameplay. I like LOTR and the Warcraft setting, but mostly I do enjoy the loot and level style gameplay.
I've generally been more interested in SF, which is why I have been so interested in stuff like Starsiege and Stars Without Number.
Quote from: J Arcane;450019I do like GURPS for fantasy, but really I'm not big on the genre, never have been. My main interest in D&D was in the gameplay. I like LOTR and the Warcraft setting, but mostly I do enjoy the loot and level style gameplay.
I've generally been more interested in SF, which is why I have been so interested in stuff like Starsiege and Stars Without Number.
OK, just curious. Thanks!
The Battletech RPG.
Quote from: Peregrin;450023The Battletech RPG.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. Plus the book fell apart on me.
Quote from: RPGPundit;449808That's interesting, because to me OtE was one of the only RPGs of that type that I feel did it right.
Similarly, one of the games you trashed--Spirit of the Century--is what
I consider to be one of the first games to handle "ad hoc" traits right.
Oh, and the last incarnation of D6 from WEG. Star Wars D6 was great, but the latest version of the system just doesn't have the same appeal for some reason.
Quote from: brettmb;450096Oh, and the last incarnation of D6 from WEG. Star Wars D6 was great, but the latest version of the system just doesn't have the same appeal for some reason.
So it wasn't just me? In my case, I'd chalked it up to nostalgia.
Quote from: brettmb;450096Oh, and the last incarnation of D6 from WEG. Star Wars D6 was great, but the latest version of the system just doesn't have the same appeal for some reason.
Agreed it was badly implemented IMHO, having said that I really like the Metabarons RPG and Mini Six.
Call of Cthulhu.
Quote from: Peregrin;450023The Battletech RPG.
I had one of the best roleplaying campaigns ever with Mechwarrior 1st edition. The rules were a bit crappy, but tied into the wargame fairly well and the great GMand players did the rest.
We basically didn't take the setting or game too seriously and ran essentially a "Kellys Heroes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065938/) in space" style merc group. Half our PCs were either dishonourable dogs that none of the main houses would deal with or were alternately clinically insane from years of front line battle. IT WAS AWESOME!!! :)
Quote from: brettmb;449925Mythus - Gygax's supposed masterpiece of the time. Excellent info, horrible system.
Starsiege - nice little system, atrociously small font and crammed layout makes reading tough. Couldn't really get into it.
I never have played Mythus, however the books are great as reference works.
I had to rework the StarSiege rules some, to make it easier to use, more in line with the Siege Engine. Currently use it for my Battlestar Atlantica BSG game. Just doing the original writeup on the Battlestar broke the trappings rules and took the scale right off the charts. Expanding the scale chart was the first of many changes...
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t90/awi1777/Battlestar%20Atlantica/BSGAtlantica.jpg)
Battlestar Atlantica with Mk VII Vipers and Raptors
More eye candy here:
http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t90/awi1777/Battlestar%20Atlantica/ (http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t90/awi1777/Battlestar%20Atlantica/)
All Flesh Must Be Eaten: Love the flexibility with the zombies, love the character archetypes, love the different setting books, etc. But the system itself, not so much. Just a little too bulky for the game I think. There's also the problem that I don't think I could run any kind of long term campaign in the world.
Ghostbusters: I've seen it get a lot of love online, but this was one of the biggest RPG disappointments from my childhood. Even as a 10 year old or whatever, I found the game too "jokey" and corny (just seeing the words "brownie points" in the game made my heart sink). I know its based on a comedy movie, but still...
Werewolf the Apocolypse: I liked Vampire fairly well, despite the whole goth/Anne Rice vibe. But werewolf was a mess. Not only did the rules seem less interesting or well done as Masquerade's, but the setting with hippy werewolves was terrible.
GURPS: I love most of the sourcebooks. And the 4e core books with their new layouts are excellent. But the whole thing just seems too bloated to want to set up a campaign for. And actually playing the game with a roll 3d6 under mechanic always feels really, really dull to me. The system just doesn't deliver on the excitement the books built up for me.
Gamma World 3e: What a beautiful, evocative cover. What interesting concepts for a system. What a lousy, terrible set of slapped-together books.
Cyberpunk v3: Instead of an updated cyberpunk world of dystopian intrigue, I got a post-apocalyptic transhuman thingy. With doll pictures...
Shadowrun: I tried, really. But I just can't handle mixing my fantasy and cyberpunk like that. Also, the system blows.
Star Wars 2e: It sucked all of the pulpy fun out of the game and instead kept trying to make the game into "Han Solo's Traveller".
Mutants and Masterminds 2e: I like the look of the books and the system seems pretty solid. But for the life of me I can't seem to think up a character concept and feel I've accurately statted it. I also find character creation to be a confusing bear (too many powers, etc, are similar with wildly different point values for building the same thing different ways).
Daredevils: Quite possibly the coolest-seeming pulp game I've ever seen. Until you look at the Great Text Wall of China that is the rules and your eyes begin to bleed (all FGU games probably fit under this, but Daredevils is the only one I bought).
Almost forgot one:
Mythus: Another big disappointment from my youth. The books looked cool, I liked the setting, the Necropolis adventure seemed awesome, but the actual game itself was awful. And all those bizarre terms he threw in (e.g., heka) turned me off completely.
C&C - I thought it heralded a return of really old-school D&D. We had to wait for S&W, OSRIC and LL for that. C&C was less "Basic and AD&D with the serial numbers filed off" and more "d20 fantasy with parts missing." Primes? SIEGE mechanic? WTF is this shit?
Hackmaster Basic: When your basic game's character construction rules make me wanna hurl, you've done something wrong. I didn't go into it looking for a game that "was just like D&D but not", but I'd hoped it was a little lighter. I fear for K&C over what Advanced is going to be like if the dog's breakfast of character creation in that book is "basic".
Mechwarrior the RPG. GOD I wanted to love this, but it's clear the designers wanted D&D in mechs. Still the art in that book is probably the 2nd best art in an RPG ever. The game got slightly better and the art slightly worse for 2e. Never played 3e.
Dragon Age: While I like the idea of bringing back boxed sets, doing FIVE and making your initial set level-gimped is awful.
Exalted: most peoples' responses here on that game mirror my own, so.
D&D 3.x. Reading it ~2000, it seemed like the version of D&D I had always wanted. In practice, though, it always seemed like a boring chore to run (playing was okay). Two year-long campaigns later, I decided never to DM 3e again.
Conan OGL. About as close to 'Conan' as a d20 game could be. But a d20 game nonetheless. Great setting material, though.
Rolemaster FRP/SS. As a fan of MERP and RM2e, I was excited when this 'updated' version of RM came out around 1994. One disastrous short campaign later, I vowed never to run RMSS again.
Savage Worlds. I can't understand why this game has so many advocates.
Spirit of the Century. Only played this a couple of times, but I just couldn't get into the 'spirit' of the game. :o
Quote from: thedungeondelver;450182C&C - I thought it heralded a return of really old-school D&D. We had to wait for S&W, OSRIC and LL for that. C&C was less "Basic and AD&D with the serial numbers filed off" and more "d20 fantasy with parts missing." Primes? SIEGE mechanic? WTF is this shit?
Yeah, C&C is another one for my list as well, though for slightly different reasons.
I wanted a version of D&D that took out the complexity of 3e but left the clean design.
Instead I got something that had the clunky aspects of AD&D without the flavor, missing the options of 3e, and adding a completely unnecessary and counterintuitive mechanic with the SEIGE engine.
Then when everyone pointed out the flaws, they said "don't worry, we'll address all your concerns plus show you cool new stuff to do with the SEIGE engine in our soon to be released keeper's guide".
And a mere 7 years later, they released something that addressed none of those concerns but did manage to present reheated versions of old AD&D mechanics that no one cared about and a lite version of the mass combat rules they already had another book for.
Granted, it's not as depressing as, say, being a Mets fan, but there were definately some missed opportunities there for a clean, simple version of D&D Classic.
Burning Wheel (yeah, I know, Swine and stuff) - I liked the character generation concept and the Beliefs and Instincts model, but the combat rules were a giant load of WTF that I couldn't grok.
Mage - I love the whole idea of magic in a modern setting, but this game left me utterly cold. To this day I can't really tell you why.
Star Wars d6 - This game gets so much love that I don't feel good about bagging on it, but I disliked almost everything about this game -- the crappy art, the clunky damage system, the preachy rules. Granted, the d20 version didn't exactly do it for me either. Maybe I just want to like Star Wars gaming, but can't.
Trail of Cthulhu - I like this game a lot in theory, but recently realized I will almost certainly never run it.
Quote from: Insufficient Metal;450258Trail of Cthulhu - I like this game a lot in theory, but recently realized I will almost certainly never run it.
I'd like to run Trail some day to try it out, but I've been buying Trail products to use in my d20 and BRP CoC games even if they never make it into a Trail game...
Seanchai
Yeah, I bought Trail intending to ignore its system and mine it for ideas... and it's been useful that way.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;450182Hackmaster Basic: When your basic game's character construction rules make me wanna hurl, you've done something wrong. I didn't go into it looking for a game that "was just like D&D but not", but I'd hoped it was a little lighter. I fear for K&C over what Advanced is going to be like if the dog's breakfast of character creation in that book is "basic".
1) It never claimed to be a "Lite" game. In fact in the forward it says that it isn't. Just a "Basic" version of the full game that is coming out.
2) Have you never been through a HM4 character creation? HMb is quick and easy compared to HMb
3) And that is why they put the "Quickstart" rules in the game.
4) Some people LIKE a very detailed character creation...
Quote from: greylond;4502971) It never claimed to be a "Lite" game. In fact in the forward it says that it isn't. Just a "Basic" version of the full game that is coming out.
THEY advertise it as "Basic". Look up what Basic means in terms of any fantasy RPG.
Quote2) Have you never been through a HM4 character creation? HMb is quick and easy compared to HMb
Saying "Well it's better than Hackmaster 4" isn't much of a compliment. Or a stretch.
Quote3) And that is why they put the "Quickstart" rules in the game.
If this is supposed to be a Basic game, the fucking quickstart rules
ought to be the rules they're presenting.
Quote4) Some people LIKE a very detailed character creation...
So do I, and yet I don't like theirs, genius, which is why I responded to a thread titled "Games
YOU (meaning me) wanted to like but couldn't." Not "Games You Don't Like But Greylond Does So There's Something Wrong With You And He'll Detail It In The Thread".
But by all means keep going on about how I said things I didn't and how I should actually like this because it's better than another game by the same company that I don't like oh and please make more assumptions about what I do and don't like in RPGs. Basically I took this car for a test drive and said the seat gives me a backache and you're railing at me that the car is blue, lots of people like blue cars.
Quote from: Seanchai;450280I'd like to run Trail some day to try it out, but I've been buying Trail products to use in my d20 and BRP CoC games even if they never make it into a Trail game...
Seanchai
Quote from: Simlasa;450286Yeah, I bought Trail intending to ignore its system and mine it for ideas... and it's been useful that way.
Haven't played it yet, but I'll agree the material is useful even if you're running Cthulhu with other systems.
Quote from: Insufficient Metal;450258Burning Wheel (yeah, I know, Swine and stuff) - I liked the character generation concept and the Beliefs and Instincts model, but the combat rules were a giant load of WTF that I couldn't grok.
One of my friends thought it was going to be a bear to learn until I started going off about stances and reach...and suddenly it clicked for him. Turns out being a fencer IRL helps with grokking the system. Sadly I'm not a fencer, so I had to work a little harder to visualize how everything works.
Rolemaster: to someone who knew only D&D it looked ubercool, but at the end I was never able to "get" into it.
Shadow World: My dislike is actually unrelated to RM. I sometimes buy a RPG just for the setting and the ideas, and I got a whole slew of SW books at a sale. I even liked what I read! But, for some reason, I was never able to put together something interesting for this setting.
Wraith: the Oblivion: I like the concept - sue me. But I don't think it is possibile to play this game properly without the guidance of someone who already did that. A game for which, as the GM, I was never able to even gather what I was supposed to do.
Summerland: Cool idea and cover - end of the story. I felt like if someone came to me and said: "Hey, I have an idea for a setting! Here, develop it!" I got it at the "Help Haiti" initiative by Drivethrough RPG, so I don't feel bad.
Quote from: Simlasa;450286Yeah, I bought Trail intending to ignore its system and mine it for ideas... and it's been useful that way.
I really like
Trail of Cthulhu. Also anticipating
Night's Black Agents.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;450304THEY advertise it as "Basic". Look up what Basic means in terms of any fantasy RPG.
No, they advertise it as "HackMaster Basic"
Quote from the Forward:
QuoteNow a few things about HackMaster Basic you should know before we turn you loose. First off what does "HackMaster Basic" mean...?
This book provides just that — the basics. Everything the GM/Players need to run and play HackMaster for 1st through 5th level characters. All between two covers. And when you're ready to take the next step? Advanced HackMaster picks up where HMb leaves off. No need for conversions or changes to your characters or campaigns, just keep on playing.
Like I said, if it's not for you, that's Ok. Just wanted to point out that they never said it was a "Lite" game. That's your misconception... ;)
Quote from: Reckall;450326Wraith: the Oblivion: I like the concept - sue me. But I don't think it is possibile to play this game properly without the guidance of someone who already did that. A game for which, as the GM, I was never able to even gather what I was supposed to do.
I really liked the concept as well. Wraith was actually my favorite WoD line.
That said, I never did manage to play more than a session of it at a time - everyone always found it too depressing and macabre to actually play.
Granted, the couple times we actually tried did hinge on inherently depressing scenarios (one was about ghosts in Auschwitz during the Holocaust, the other involved people playing dead versions of themselves).
Aliens Adventure Game by Leading Edge games. I guess I could expand that to anything by Leading Edge games and Barry Nakazono.
I frackin' love the Aliens movie and the whole concept behind and around the Colonial Marines, but the actual game system was ass.
Legend of the Five Rings was something that I was looking forward to play, but the combination of an uninspired GM and the rest of the group being completely apathetic about it soured the experience for me. And the system didn't click with me. Actually, Qin suffered from the same problems for me. I might revisit those games either running them myself or finding someone else to run them.
Scion was another game that on the surface was something that I should totally dig. But the storyteller system didn't fit it at all in my opinion (then again, where does that system really fit?). I got interested in Anima after reading a bit about the setting but the system was such complete horseshit that I'm glad I never bought it.
Rune Quest don't know why but this and associated StromBringer and Hawkmoon (though I love CoC)
Twilight 2000 2nd edition. I've had the box set since I was 10 and still can not make a character. You have to find the SQUARE ROOT of things to find certain stats.
I enjoyed playing it though, the few times I got to.
Also, Cthulu Tech. Concept is awesome, fluff is sweet, demons, aliens, giant robots, ultra-violence - all good stuff. But how do you play the fucking game? I read the rules and get a migraine every time.
(http://www.rpg.net/pictures/show-water.phtml?picid=12501)
The Time & Time Again RPG (Morrow Project, 1984). I absolutely loved the fiction revolving around the discovery of time travel in the game, and I also loved the concept of the para-military Voltigeur time traveling soldiers. The concepts and and ideas are gold for me in regards to time traveling tropes and ideas. However, the game system sucks ass. Any game system that makes me roll 1d200 for results is off the table for me. Years ago I worked on a conversion to RQ3 and a conversion to 3e GURPS. I actually got to run few sessions of my RQ/T&TA conversion.
D&D 3e - I once was a 3e fanboy, mostly cuz I was a 2e fanboy, and 3 is greater than 2, so it must be the same only better! (yeah, I was a teen at the time). Then I finally got to play 3e. Two years later I realized I never had any fun in any of the game sessions, whereas I hated most of the guys from my old 2e group but I was still able to have fun in that.
BRP - I thought I may have found the RPG for me. I think that idea officially died when, during my first time running/playing it, one PC ended up grappling a monster of nightmare and beating it up, while another PC aimed at it point-blank with a shotgun and easily missed (yes, I used the point-blank rules). The game was meant to be a modern horror game in the vein of Silent Hill ... and the character with a grappling of 50% became the most reliable fighter, which turned all the monsters into jokes. Oh, and the Contested Rolls system was just awful. Fortunately Savage Worlds seems to be giving me what I want now.
I wonder if a lot of people also have games they didn't want to like, but did.
RPGPundit
EDIT: Started a new thread about this.
Paranoia. Reading it was hilarious and great. Playing it...not so much.
Mage: The Ascension. I think it was the most interesting of the WoD games, the magic system is cool, and I *still* want to like the game, but it just never worked for me in play.
Savage Worlds. Another one that just didn't click for me in actual play.
Paranoia: I forgot about it. I just hate a game where you have to have demency. Give me a serious, introspective game based on embracing your junghian shadow through cognitive psychoanalysis and I'll provide all the needed demency.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;452982Paranoia. Reading it was hilarious and great. Playing it...not so much.
We tried playing Paranoia once as an ongoing campaign. It got kinda repetitive and boring after awhile. (Even the humor can get kinda boring and "mundane" after awhile).
It seems to play better as an evening one-shot game, than as a regular ongoing campaign game.
When did we change the thread's subject to: games you were darn sure were crap and righteous subsequent "I told you so" moment?
I wanted to like Feng Shui, but the system...I love kung fu movies. I love hong kong flix. I even liked the wonky setting. The system *seemed* like it was made for high flying awesome action.
In practice, I found it frustrating to the point where I winged my dice across the room. Let me get this straight...you want the players to have their guys be able to do HK Action Movie stuff, but most of the time you get penalties for it?
Fuck yooooou!
Still bitter about that game because it seemed perfect for my brain. Maybe we didn't play it right, who knows?
aaron
Quote from: boulet;453064When did we change the thread's subject to: games you were darn sure were crap and righteous subsequent "I told you so" moment?
No, but that would be a good topic for someone to start a new thread about, and it might dissuade people from confusing the subject matter of this thread.
RPGPundit
Quote from: thedungeondelver;450182Hackmaster Basic: When your basic game's character construction rules make me wanna hurl, you've done something wrong. I didn't go into it looking for a game that "was just like D&D but not", but I'd hoped it was a little lighter. I fear for K&C over what Advanced is going to be like if the dog's breakfast of character creation in that book is "basic".
I'd like a whole list of specifics, if you're amenable. :) Extra feedback will be particularly helpful as we're working on the PHB. You can post here or email me at mark at kenzerco dot com.
Scion: This should have been the perfect game for our group - gods and mythic beings duking it out on 21st century Earth! We didn't even expect much from the Storyteller rules, but this particular incarnation seems to have been written by some mathematically challenged imbecile. Why???
Exalted: We're playing it right now, but I'm getting seriously annoyed by the ruleset. Roll dozens of dice to attack, use some convoluted charms, roll even more dice to defend - before you finally realize that it ends with a single die of ping damage, no matter what you do!
Thanks for listening to this rant, now I need some booze! ;)
Quote from: Todtsteltzer;457528Scion: This should have been the perfect game for our group - gods and mythic beings duking it out on 21st century Earth! We didn't even expect much from the Storyteller rules, but this particular incarnation seems to have been written by some mathematically challenged imbecile. Why???
Sounds like you may like the forthcoming Part-Time Gods.
Or Lords of Olympus.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;457811Or Lords of Olympus.
RPGPundit
If it ever comes out...;)
A really cool indie game I got from rpgnow called EPICS. The concept was that you made a broad outline of your character, then started playing. When you came across a situation, you would then decide how good your character was at it, allocating remaining character creation points. Like "Pff, I studied computers a lot!" would cost you more than, "I used to work customer service for this particular computer company". And you could get points back for being in a dangerous situation and announcing your character didn't have a particularly useful skill.
I liked this for a unique design-in-play type of situation to get your action hero characters moving quickly while still allowing them to flesh things out not based on your "best guess" of what the campaign would be about, but with unquestionably relevant benefits and drawbacks.
In practice, the point economy never quite made it, and the opening, sketchy characters, were too sketchy to satisfy even design-in-play people. You really didn't have much to go on. Also the length of the campaign impacted your spending decisions way too much. You ended up gauging how many points to invest by the real-world calendar. ("How long are we going to play this? Multiply by how often we play...")
But I still love the idea of working up your character capabilities on the spot, and the flaw mechanic of yelling, in the cockpit of a crashing plane, "I don't know anything about planes! Aaaagh!" and having that have a mechanical impact, all that was great. Wish it had worked.
There was a GURPS advantage for that.
Ah, the trifecta that made me acutely aware of how poisonous RPG.net "darlings" could be:
Burning Wheel
Spirit of the Century
Dogs in the Vineyard.
I had such a hard time with Spirit that I haven't been able to give ANY FATE RPG a fair shake since. I *really* wanted to like all three (especially the first two).
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;458847I had such a hard time with Spirit that I haven't been able to give ANY FATE RPG a fair shake since. I *really* wanted to like all three (especially the first two).
With this, I just kept on using Fudge or Terra Incognita along with a collection of house rules. A couple of the really best original games I ever ran came out of using Fudge/TI.
I wanted to like Rolemaster and Spacemaster. I GM'd MERP for years and wanted something more, an expansion. Instead the covers of the books concealed a layer of steaming shit. So disappointed with the typos, unnecessary complications, need to buy half a dozen companions or you felt you were missing out. I thought I'd not given it a fair crack of the whip so bought it again a few years ago, only to find there's all sorts of editions out now and I'm not sure what is what. I think I own most of them, and they may be roughly the same game, but I was right the first time round.
It's crap. MERP was massively better in every respect for me and my group.
I have the HARP game to look at but it's stuck in a pile of other stuff gathering dust.
I never felt the love for Runequest either. BECMI D&D ruled our gaming sessions for so long everything else was a passing fad, including AD&D though we gave that a fair try.
Traveller, another one that never caught on. I think it was the fact that we as teenagers couldn't get out heads around playing 40 odd year old characters, as you needed them and some lucky rolls to get decent skills.
Star Wars rpg was ok but the setting felt like a millstone around the neck after a while. Stromtroopers were mowed down in droves by high level characters and what's Star Wars without stormtroopers? Were I running it today I'd use elements from the force unleashed video game which was excellent.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;458847I had such a hard time with Spirit that I haven't been able to give ANY FATE RPG a fair shake since. I *really* wanted to like all three (especially the first two).
That's too bad because Starblazer Adventures and ICONS are both great games. Note that I totally agree with you about spirit of the century.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;459044That's too bad because Starblazer Adventures and ICONS are both great games. Note that I totally agree with you about spirit of the century.
RPGPundit
I have both of those...I have Starblazer Adventures in PDF (from one of the RPGNow charity bundles) and I own (and have ran) ICONS...ICONS' "pseudo-FATE married to Marvel FASERIP" approach works for me a bit better...I've just been really gunshy about Starblazer Adventures because of SotC.
Serenity, man.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;459087I've just been really gunshy about Starblazer Adventures because of SotC.
IMO SBA is significantly clearer and better-written than SotC.
Another one:
M&M 2e I ordered it online when i returned to RPGs on 05. I guess I didn't expect the new hotness to look so much like Hero, which I also did not like.
Quote from: Aos;459613Another one:
M&M 2e I ordered it online when i returned to RPGs on 05. I guess I didn't expect the new hotness to look so much like Hero, which I also did not like.
I must concur.
Diaspora's the only one that doesn't make me grind my teeth, and even then I've got to use 1d6-1d6 for it.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;459618Diaspora's the only one that doesn't make me grind my teeth, and even then I've got to use 1d6-1d6 for it.
wrong thread?
Quote from: Aos;459619wrong thread?
Yes, but also very appropriate.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;458847Ah, the trifecta that made me acutely aware of how poisonous RPG.net "darlings" could be:
Burning Wheel
Spirit of the Century
Dogs in the Vineyard.
I really like Burning Wheel... as an intellectual exercise. I like a lot of the rules, Circles, Character Advancement, Steel, the way anti-armor weapons work, etc. I like it not for the usual reasons "forgie" people like it, I like it because it reminds me of the "realistic" games that were fashionable in the eighties, games like Time Lords, Hârnmaster, Rolemaster, etc.
On the other hand, as a game, I see it as unplayable. I guess the people who claim to have played it are saying the truth, but there's no way I see myself running it, or my group playing it. Character generation is very involved, Character Advancement bookkeeping a chore, three types of Artha (hero points)? Come on.
Actually, according to Luke, most "forgie" types don't play games like Burning Wheel. Guess it runs too "trad" for their tastes or something.
Anecdotally, it's worked at our table. It's definitely challenging -- you really have to be willing to digest the game to make it work. I remember getting a similar feeling like "There's no way..." when I first took a look at Exalted, back when my only experience with a fantasy game was 3e. But we managed to figure it out with a bit of practice, and once you get the hang of it it's pretty rewarding.
Quote from: Aos;459619wrong thread?
Hah, yeah, whoops. <:)
With Soylent Green on Rune. After Feng Shui I was really looking forward to Robin Laws' next, and Vikings are cool, so it seemed like a shoo-in, and then it was a weird budget-fest that I couldn't even begin to attempt to run.
Savage Worlds. With Savage Worlds there isn't enough meat there unless the GM (or "Savage Molester," as he's called in the book) is willing to be off-the-cuffing stuff, and he wasn't. "I'm sorry that seems like a valid Strength trick but the game only defines Smarts and Agility tricks." "Oh well then this system is boring as all fuck." Also probably the GM's style is to blame, he'd just suddenly take 15 minutes to biuld a big HeroClix battle mat and put the exact same generic goblin and dwarf minis down on it (we never fought dwarves or goblins, they were stand-ins) and look at us and say "What do you want to do?" "To what? Where are we? What do those goblins represent? Why are you a big freak?" But we gave it two campaigns. Once the final one ended with us getting killed by the traditional SW "guy you can't hit ever except on super lucky explosions" we boycotted.
With FATE/Dresden Files, it wasn't really the core mechanics that got us. Well, maybe it was. I just remember the wizard continually outshining other people in their specialty, and then us taking an egregiously long time to cast some detection spell. "Do we have enough juju to make it work? No? OK, we put in... Some grass, because he was on grass when he was abducted! Still not enough? We put in... A phone book with his name in it! How about now?" We stole Aspects and just added them to our Pathfinder characters, that works well enough.
D&D 4e, because I actually liked D&D in Basic, 1e, 2e, and 3e.
M&M 2e and Spycraft 2e. I loved 1e of both, and I was fine with upgrading and bought the books for both sight unseen. And with both, they took a fine RPG and ladled on big levels of complexity and made it read like an encyclopedia full of definitions and not a game. I think it's at this point I decided giant games were not for me any more and started eyeballing lighter approaches (though sadly Savage Worlds was supposed to be the lead candidate there).
Yeah, with Dresden Files, much like in the books, if a wizard has unlimited time, there's virtually nothing they can't do. It's important to have ex-girlfriends and loan sharks constantly hassling you for no reason, putting limited time on it, otherwise there's just no challenge and everything is relaxed and easy.
Quote from: mxyzplk;459835With FATE/Dresden Files, it wasn't really the core mechanics that got us. Well, maybe it was. I just remember the wizard continually outshining other people in their specialty, and then us taking an egregiously long time to cast some detection spell. "Do we have enough juju to make it work? No? OK, we put in... Some grass, because he was on grass when he was abducted! Still not enough? We put in... A phone book with his name in it! How about now?"
When we do a ritual and there's no pressure, it's a moment for the player to add cool color by describing their ritual and all its occult symbolism and unique components. Of course, things are rarely so serene, what with all the Compels and the evil Wardens trying to mind control us and frame us for murder.
Quote from: Noclue;459842When we do a ritual and there's no pressure, it's a moment for the player to add cool color by describing their ritual and all its occult symbolism and unique components. Of course, things are rarely so serene, what with all the Compels and the evil Wardens trying to mind control us and frame us for murder.
And more power to you, I'm just saying our entire group was bored as fuck with the whole thing and expressed no interest in going back for more. Might have been the GM, may have been us misunderstanding, but it ended badly enough there was no second attempt.
Quote from: mxyzplk;459835Savage Worlds. With Savage Worlds there isn't enough meat there unless the GM (or "Savage Molester," as he's called in the book) is willing to be off-the-cuffing stuff, and he wasn't. "I'm sorry that seems like a valid Strength trick but the game only defines Smarts and Agility tricks." "Oh well then this system is boring as all fuck." Also probably the GM's style is to blame, he'd just suddenly take 15 minutes to biuld a big HeroClix battle mat and put the exact same generic goblin and dwarf minis down on it (we never fought dwarves or goblins, they were stand-ins) and look at us and say "What do you want to do?" "To what? Where are we? What do those goblins represent? Why are you a big freak?" But we gave it two campaigns. Once the final one ended with us getting killed by the traditional SW "guy you can't hit ever except on super lucky explosions" we boycotted.
Now, I reuse maps and minis all the time...but I make damn sure everyone knows what is what...=P
Palldium(Rifts, Fantasy, Etc), Hero System, Savage Worlds, L5R, & 4e. I wanted to love them all and I thoroughly enjoy reading the books, I just don't like playing them.
Quote from: mxyzplk;459843And more power to you, I'm just saying our entire group was bored as fuck with the whole thing and expressed no interest in going back for more. Might have been the GM, may have been us misunderstanding, but it ended badly enough there was no second attempt.
Were your Savage Worlds GM and your Dresden Files GM the same dude?
Quote from: Noclue;459884Were your Savage Worlds GM and your Dresden Files GM the same dude?
No, the Savage Worlds GM was a player in the Dresden one-shot.
The problem I have with SW is the tone. I can't imagine a SW version of 40k because the iconography, tone, the pulpy style of the whole package is completely at odds. With something like Deadlands, no problem.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;460055The problem I have with SW is the tone. I can't imagine a SW version of 40k because the iconography, tone, the pulpy style of the whole package is completely at odds. With something like Deadlands, no problem.
I feel the same.
The tone in general is borderline stupid in a Saturday morning cartoon-ish way, though this was considerably ameliorated in the Explorer's Edition. Still, some poor choices linger in the game jargon ("the drop"???).
SW is primed for games in which the characters, even newbies, are awesome all (or most) of the time. The game assumes right out of the gate that Wild Card characters (PCs and important NPCs) are Dame Fortuna's godchildren. They are hard to kill, dice explode fairly often, fumbles are rare, and Bennies allow them not only to reroll failed tasks, but also to soak wounds, literally shrugging off injuries that kill or incapacitate lesser men (Extras).
In a way, it's not entirely unlike D&D 4e, in that it substitutes the traditional (and all too often, lethal) tactical challenges of old school games for resource management (Bennies), battlefield positioning (I tend to downplay the last and handwave a lot, since I don't use miniatures or a grid), etc.
It's a good fit if you want to emulate the stylized violence of a Hollywood action movie, or a Saturday morning cartoon. Which is to say, I cannot think of a worse fit than WH40K and SW. WH40K is a universe in which Bad Things happen to Larger-Than-Life Characters (yes, I think even DH characters are pretty awesome by the standard of their day). SW is a game in which Awesome Things happen to Ordinary (but Extraordinarily Gifted/Lucky) Characters.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;460055The problem I have with SW is the tone. I can't imagine a SW version of 40k because the iconography, tone, the pulpy style of the whole package is completely at odds. With something like Deadlands, no problem.
Yeah; a regular in our biweekly AD&D game insisted I run my Twilight:2000 game with SW and man they do not mix.
Quote from: The Butcher;460098Which is to say, I cannot think of a worse fit than WH40K and SW.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;460220Yeah; a regular in our biweekly AD&D game insisted I run my Twilight:2000 game with SW and man they do not mix.
I stand corrected...
Quote from: The Butcher;460231Quote from: The Butcher;460098Which is to say, I cannot think of a worse fit than WH40K and SW.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;460220Yeah; a regular in our biweekly AD&D game insisted I run my Twilight:2000 game with SW and man they do not mix.
I stand corrected...
Harn?
Quote from: Cole;460233Harn?
The topic deserves its own thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=460239#post460239). ;)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;460220Yeah; a regular in our biweekly AD&D game insisted I run my Twilight:2000 game with SW and man they do not mix.
Can you buy off rads with bennies?