Do you have any games that you used to like playing, but that for one reason or another you've soured on? If so, why?
Rolemaster because once it gets beyond four combatants I just can't keep track of the maths anymore.
Old World of Darkness et. al. because I can't stand the mawkishness anymore.
Ars Magica: because I can't find four GMs to sit down at one table.
Space Opera. HERO system (early Champions and Robot Warriors were my jam). SpyCraft.
I want to return to Splicers, but probably using Savage Worlds instead of Palladium.
I don't have the patience for rules heavy(ish) systems anymore.
I also doubt I'd run AD&D or B/X again. I'm just too deep in my OD&D / S&W:WB sandbox to consider another TSR D&D.
I want to revisit CHILL, but it might have been supplanted by Sine Nomine's Silent Legions.
I have much fondness for Star Frontiers and Fading Suns...but the original systems just leave me cold.
D&D 3.5/P. It was my introduction to tabletop, so I'll always have a soft spot for it, but the wildly escalating numbers, complexity, and massive class imbalance even in the core book(s) alone soured me to them. That, and I'm no longer fond of D&D's six attribute setup in general. It's not a deal breaker, but I prefer alternate setups similar to Shadow of the Demon Lord or Savage Worlds.
Hero System/Champions: Just prefer easier systems for my supers these days
Vampire: The Masquerade. It was fun for awhile, but eventually turned me off
D&D/AD&D: Fell out of love with D20 for a long time. Checking out some OSR stuff the past 2 or 3 years though, mostly thanks to Sin Nomine's stuff being so cool
Active dislike for D&D 3.*, except play using only the original 3E rules and/or Arcana Evolved, kept to no more than about level 7--maybe level 9 for a major finale after a long time getting to 7.
I don't dislike Fantasy Hero and GURPs, but in practice they do not tend to make the cut for, "the game I want to do next." If one of my groups really wanted to do it, I would for a short campaign. I like how it plays, but quickly get tired of the preparation work in it. I'd need to run a fairly limited game to want to do it now.
Likewise, I don't have anything against AD&D 1E, but it would be an odd situation that would have me playing that instead of BECMI/RC or 5E. They hit closer to the kind of game I typically want to run now, is all.
Wow. Lot of similarities to everyone else.
I tried oWoD and some of the base concepts (particularly in Wraith and Mage) are interesting, but between the mechanics and the appeal-to-depressed-teenager-isms and hipper-than-thous-isms that are either part of it or imbedded in the zeitgeist surrounding the games, I don't think I could go back.
I understand why D&D 3e exists, and kinda roll my eyes at the vitriol it sometimes gets, but the flaws are well known and so imbedded that any house-ruled fix is basically a new game.
GURPS and HERO system are both great games that very well do something I no longer have interest in doing.
AD&D just sits at a mid-point that doesn't seem to be a stable position for my interests. I'd rather slide down the complexity curve to a basic/osr or oD&D system or up it to 5e.
Have started disliking class based games (D&D being the big one). I'll still play, but not something I would run.
One game I don't play any more but would play in heartbeat is Dragon Warriors.
Champions great toolbox to do anything you want, but preptime took forever if the GM
Palladium 1st edition,TMNT,Ninjas & Superspies, Mechanoids, System Failure, had a lot of fun, but Kevin's antics (and cease and desist letter) turned me off of everything he did.
oWoD, specifically werewolf, if they worked on the system half as much as they did the background material....
Adventure! lots of great ideas, bogged down by the rules
Deadlands (classic) loved most of it, really liked the separate mechanics for each class, the switch to SW (and my wife passing) killed my interest
Cyberpunk 2020, love the system, love the background, love to over the top gonzo stuff you can do with it, but when real life has become as dark as the game itself...
D&D3.5. wasnt a D&D fan until this version came out, but then the feat bloat killed it for me.
would play any of them again though... and might soon....
MERP/Rolemaster was my first game system after D&D, and while I've got a lot of sentimental attachment to it, I think the combat would be too swingy and bloody and the skill system a bit too fiddly nowadays.
Exalted: a thousand times Exalted.
I had a lot more free time and a much higher tolerance level for bullshit when I was younger.
There's only so many times that not only you, but entire development teams can re-write a game and it STILL turn out garbage though. If there was ever a glimmer of worth in the system, its proven impossible to extricate.
I suspect its because it wants to have every cake and eat every cake. There's a piece of artwork in the new book depicting a tumblr-y lunar eating fifty cakes in an act of "heroism"; that's a good visual metaphor of the dumpster fire this game became. Devoured by "quirky", vapid, reddit-friendly idiocy in its quest to have and eat the opposed cakes of grit and super-heroism, of moral complexity and "we really are the good guys, honest!".
I can't even recognize the over-cooked monstrosity the system devolved into. New XP types for crafters, huh? That's like fixing a broken leg with a chainsaw; you're just making a different, frankly worse problem. And this is how they "fixed" everything. There was another piece of art that depicted the god-empress of the world showing a bit much leg for a formal court, so they awkwardly photoshopped a longer hem over her leg. You can't make this shit up.
Yeah... I'm pretty soured on it. Which is a shame, because some of the coolest, most ball-smashingly awesome things I've ever seen in an RPG came out of this game once upon a time (also some of the most ball-smashingly frustrating, but hey)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1039405MERP/Rolemaster was my first game system after D&D, and while I've got a lot of sentimental attachment to it, I think the combat would be too swingy and bloody and the skill system a bit too fiddly nowadays.
Agreed. The skill system meant too many failures for my until third or fourth level and the plethora of skills from skill-splitting from Rolemaster Companion 2 onwards means that I only own RMC1 these days. I got rid of the rest.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1039410Agreed. The skill system meant too many failures for my until third or fourth level and the plethora of skills from skill-splitting from Rolemaster Companion 2 onwards means that I only own RMC1 these days. I got rid of the rest.
I kept II for the classes and spell lists, and VI for the Gothic Fantasy classes and the One-Roll Combat, Second-by-Second Initiative, and Unified Skill System that I always wanted to try out but never had a chance to use.
Indeed I regret losing the Runemaster, Witch and the better Palladin lists but I don't miss the Shaman (WTF?) the Warrior Mage (munchkins' go to) and the Dancer (with a ten-foot pole?).
World of Darkness
For traditional tabletop RPGs, there are only two that I ever really liked playing: The Fantasy Trip and GURPS, because I like what they do with semi-realistic mapped tactical combat, and other systems don't compete or even try to do that.
After playing The Fantasy Trip regularly for about five years, we still loved it but we wanted something more unpredictable, detailed, realistic and balanced at higher levels. That is, TFT felt like it was all those things when we started playing it, but as we became really experienced with it, and as we started playing with more and more characters who were high-level, it lost those elements for us and we could predict outcomes and it felt artificial. So we started to try to houerule TFT and then redesign basically a new game that was going in the direction of Phoenix Command, and then GURPS came out and did what we had been trying to do only a much more polished job of it. GURPS with various options & houserules has remained solid for us ever sense.
Top Secret and Top Secret SI. Also the James Bond 007 RPG.
Rolemaster, definitely.
HERO and GURPS. (Admittedly, those are "toolkits" rather than games.)
Traveller (too much "Traveller is HARD SCI-FI !!!!!!!!1111!!11!!!11!" these days)
D&D
3.5+ just isn't that much of a system and earlier versions have been supplanted by better games.
D&D, after 37 years it has just become a chore to get interested in the game anymore in any of its incarnations.
Champions, Pathfinder, D&D 3.X, Mutants and Masterminds: Communities are circling the drain with the remainder mostly comprised of the mechanics autists.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;1039467Champions, Pathfinder, D&D 3.X, Mutants and Masterminds: Communities are circling the drain with the remainder mostly comprised of the mechanics autists.
I don't know about the others, but I wouldn't count
Champions out just yet--it's been pronounced dead several times before. It's a system I've never played, but I've read a lot, own a lot of material for, and generally respect--I just think it's probably too much for me to want to wrestle with these days. I'd jump at the opportunity to give it a try in play, but I don't know that I have the energy to run it even if I get around to running something.
Another vote for rolemaster and MERP. I got a lot out of those games 25 or so years ago, and my MERP collection is a treasure to me, but the game hasen't aged well.
I tried it again recently (well 2 years ago). It just didn't fly. Part of the problem I think is that I used to play with people who could do 2 and 3 digit addition and subtraction instantly, in their heads. That used to be a common skill. The math doesn't bother me at all, but when I have to do all the math for every roll and consult the charts - forget it. It cuts into my beer time.
Quote from: jeff37923;1039457D&D, after 37 years it has just become a chore to get interested in the game anymore in any of its incarnations.
hear, hear!
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1039468I don't know about the others, but I wouldn't count Champions out just yet--it's been pronounced dead several times before. It's a system I've never played, but I've read a lot, own a lot of material for, and generally respect--I just think it's probably too much for me to want to wrestle with these days. I'd jump at the opportunity to give it a try in play, but I don't know that I have the energy to run it even if I get around to running something.
In order to come back, Champions needs to start catering to new players again and stop pandering to the writeups crowd. Same thing M&M needs to do.
Off the top of my head
Champions and by extension the Hero System. While a versatile system it is just too crunchy for my and my group taste. Same issue with Gurps.
D&D 2E. I have a love and hate relationship with that version. It was the longest edition that I played and I had fun both running and playing it. Yet I found the DMG to be terrible both as a teaching tool and in general. Between the generally adversarial tone of the advice, a player wants to keep using silver weapons make sure they break at the worst time. A player likes to min-max go for his weakness. Don't even get me started on the sample combat they put in the book. I'm really hoping that never was a actual combat they used as a example because the players as written are dumber than bag full of hammers.
Rifts same as 2E D&D the system while serviceable has not aged well to me at least and I find myself mostly reading the books for inspiration to use with other rpgs. It does not even need a new edition just a simple updating of the current system.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;1039509In order to come back, Champions needs to start catering to new players again and stop pandering to the writeups crowd. Same thing M&M needs to do.
It's never going to happen imo. Between some of the fanbase in denial at the popularity of the system as a whole. With other members thinking that all is required is better production values and sudden a bunch of new players will come out of the woodwork. To some lamenting that the system is not as popular but Hero Games better never, ever change anything with the rules as is.
Compared to some of you guys, I'm obviously a curmudgeon.
Exalted: I loved 1e...mostly, or at least I did until the Player's Guide. Then 2e lost me early on (after the core rulebook) and I never could get back into it. The 2e action resolution flow that had (IIRC) seven steps to figure in when taking an action was just the first example of how overcomplicated this thing became.
Shadowrun: Speaking of overcomplicated, this one kills me. I started in 1989 with a fresh copy of 1e and I loved the hell out of it. I bought pretty much every edition but increasingly felt like the crunch level just kept getting thicker with no increase to my enjoyment. I seem to remember character generation that can take about an hour for everything except equipment...and then three fucking days of figuring out gear (and modifications & software on that gear). The character sheets for the sample characters strain my eyes to read everything that they try to cram into a starting character, and it only gets worse.
Pathfinder: Again, the crunch just lost it's appeal. I can't do everything with 5e D&D that I could with Pathfinder, and that's a good thing in my eyes. I don't want bare-bones games, but I also don't need them morbidly obese with crunchy options.
FFG's Star Wars: Fuck this system and the narrative it rode in on. The game is so filled with bugs that it's proponents try to pass as features that it makes me angry just to think how much time I put into it. This game seriously has detracted from any enjoyment I find in anything Star Wars, so much so that I now avoid the IP...so I guess that's my "narrative arc" in a nutshell. Oh, and throw WFRP 3e into this same category. Just a $100 box of shit...
Rolemaster: The only guy that I knew that ran a Rolemaster game well enough for me to look past the dryness of the system died in 2013 from "the ass cancer" (his words). I miss him.
Pre-5e D&D: I've played them all over the years (since 1984), and 5e hits a sweet spot for crunch and playability. I don't need the ones that came before (and 4e can rot in a landfill).
I agree about Shadowrun. Even if 4E then 5E were the only editions I would run or play Riggers or Deckers. Let allow them at the table.
Star Wars D6 a favored yet also flawed rpg. Too many roles and I never liked how they handled high leve Jedi. Basically screw iver the players because the devs were sure not going to address the problem.
Warhamner 2E I never played 1E. Too much of a whiff factor imo. While combat is deadly and realistic swinging and missing constantly is not fun imo. Positioning can only do so much and being told the ranged guy needs to get closer to the target to increase one chances to hit defeats the purpose to me at least of a ranged weapon. I'm hoping thst they do something about that in the upcoming 4E.
I used to love playing Pathfinder, until the characters got to 2nd Level.
Quote from: sureshot;1039516It's never going to happen imo. Between some of the fanbase in denial at the popularity of the system as a whole. With other members thinking that all is required is better production values and sudden a bunch of new players will come out of the woodwork. To some lamenting that the system is not as popular but Hero Games better never, ever change anything with the rules as is.
Hero Games ran the production values bid eight-nine years again and had to virtually shutdown to keep going until present day. GR would be in the same position with M&M if not for the other things going for them. A lot of this I choke up to these same crowds spending copious amount of times writing up characters, not playing them (or playing them as builds instead of characters), and then complaining about the inevitable shrinkage.
Almost two decades ago, Aaron Allston ran several long Hero System campaigns over a twenty year period (with the most prominent - Strike Force - lasting over 250 sessions) so it wasn't like the system was the core issue. I myself had ran a 80+ session campaign before shutting it down because I realize the majority of the campaign participants and applicants just didn't get superheroes, didn't care to learn, and were admittedly there for the power fantasy. That they had to earn the right to call themselves heroes was beyond their understanding and this lack of understanding led to some of the most egregious immoral player character actions I have ever seen. Most modern day Champions players aren't there to play superheroes but to feel powerful, abuse the system, prove they have the best skills at exploiting whatever standards the GM puts before them. They also absolutely hate losing or getting their comeuppance. This ISN'T any different for M&M by the way.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;1039612Most modern day Champions players aren't there to play superheroes but to feel powerful, abuse the system, prove they have the best skills at exploiting whatever standards the GM puts before them. They also absolutely hate losing or getting their comeuppance. This ISN'T any different for M&M by the way.
I've heard similar complaints about the RPG field in general.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1039620I've heard similar complaints about the RPG field in general.
No one ever did that in 3.5. :D
Hmm, a few...
Fantasy Hero and Champions. They were fun in their time, but I really can't get behind them any more.
AD&D - well, I could probably get back into AD&D, but I would probably stick with the PH, DMG, and MM (ok, maybe FF, and maybe maybe MMII - definitely not UA).
D&D 3.x - I do still have the core books and Arcana Unearthed/Evolved (which is what I actually played), but I'm really not sure I could get into it again.
I think that covers the games that I had any significant play investment in that I have soured on.
There are some that are impractical to play. I'm not sure I'll ever again find a play group and have time for Cold Iron (college friend's homebrew) but I still really like the system.
Frank
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1039620I've heard similar complaints about the RPG field in general.
There are player bases where things aren't so overwhelmingly venomous.
D&D - will always be foundational for me. I do not like where the design of the game has gone, and it took me years of toiling in the post 1e/2e versions of the game (outside of Fantasycraft which I still like) to realize I stopped caring for trying to repair them. I liked the settings well-enough, but I don't need the mechanics of D&D to use them. When/If I ever come back, I'll do my own heartbreaker of 1e/2e
Cyberpunk 2020 - Love this game. LOVE IT. The mechanics are fine but there are a few rules that could be updated. The content needs a fluff-up, I don't play it mainly because I'm neck deep into other games.
WoD - I've run most of the WoD games. I don't play it any longer simply because I ran this magnum opus game that lasted years that finally ended and frankly I still feel spent on it. I've considered running something original where I toss out all metaplot stuff (which I downplay a bit anyhow). But frankly I'm not too interested in it.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;1039612and were admittedly there for the power fantasy. That they had to earn the right to call themselves heroes was beyond their understanding and this lack of understanding led to some of the most egregious immortal player character actions I have ever seen. Most modern day Champions players aren't there to play superheroes but to feel powerful, abuse the system, prove they have the best skills at exploiting whatever standards the GM puts before them. They also absolutely hate losing or getting their comeuppance. This ISN'T any different for M&M by the way.
The prevalence of this attitude among the local player base has almost completely put me off all RPGing. Certainly not limited to Champions or superhero gaming.
I fell out of love with D&D and AD&D when I discovered Earthdawn. I fell out of love with Shadowrun when 4th Edition came out and stopped playing altogether when 5th Edition came out. I've fell out of love for Warhammer, but only because I can't find anyone who can GM it like the guy that used to run Warhammer at my table.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1039518Compared to some of you guys, I'm obviously a curmudgeon.
FFG's Star Wars: Fuck this system and the narrative it rode in on. The game is so filled with bugs that it's proponents try to pass as features that it makes me angry just to think how much time I put into it. This game seriously has detracted from any enjoyment I find in anything Star Wars, so much so that I now avoid the IP...so I guess that's my "narrative arc" in a nutshell. Oh, and throw WFRP 3e into this same category. Just a $100 box of shit...
Rolemaster: The only guy that I knew that ran a Rolemaster game well enough for me to look past the dryness of the system died in 2013 from "the ass cancer" (his words). I miss him.
Pre-5e D&D: I've played them all over the years (since 1984), and 5e hits a sweet spot for crunch and playability. I don't need the ones that came before (and 4e can rot in a landfill).
I still run
Star Wars Saga Edition and d6.
RoleMaster I gave up in 2000 after ICE was sold to a European team.
I still like running 0D&D games often, along with classic Traveller, and willl also run 3e D&D now and again.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1039639RoleMaster I gave up in 2000 after ICE was sold to a European team.
Coincidence? Or Europhobia?
It's sad to see two of my favorite games feature so prominently in the thread - Rolemaster and Hero - but I totally understand how times and priorities change.
For, me it's not so much that systems have lost their appeal but that the people at the table have to be the right ones and on board with assumptions of the game.
HERO System, Palladium Rifts and D&D 3.5 and it's derivatives.
I just played them too long to find all the issues for them.
Quote from: The_Shadow;1039660It's sad to see two of my favorite games feature so prominently in the thread - Rolemaster and Hero - but I totally understand how times and priorities change.
Well, it's a little bit of a backhanded compliment, given that it is supposed to be games that one used to enjoy. There's a lot more games that aren't going to get two glances from me, and quite a few I wouldn't play if you paid me. I think the solid decade I spent in Hero gives it some praise. We were mostly having fun playing it.
If I can see the code in the manuscript, then I can see how it would be a better videogame than a tabletop RPG. No time for that anymore; RPGs so crunchy that you can code them into the more popular alternative medium should just make the jump and stay on the other side. You want a design challenge? Make a proper RPG that doesn't hit that threshold, or play the older games instead.
7th Sea 1st Ed. - Too crunchy for a heroic swashbuckling game, breaks apart eventually
Mythras - Too crunchy, wouldn't run, still a great game though
Tunnels & Trolls - Holds a special place in my heart, taught me to embrace rules-lite RP, but the group combat mechanism always becomes too abstract for us after a few months of play
Savage Worlds - Great ideas, solid system, but remembering all the edges and whatnot became a pain in the ass; I'd run Mini6 today instead
Quote from: The_Shadow;1039660Coincidence? Or Europhobia?
Exceptionalism.
Quote from: Madprofessor;1039505Another vote for rolemaster and MERP. I got a lot out of those games 25 or so years ago, and my MERP collection is a treasure to me, but the game hasen't aged well.
I tried it again recently (well 2 years ago). It just didn't fly. Part of the problem I think is that I used to play with people who could do 2 and 3 digit addition and subtraction instantly, in their heads. That used to be a common skill. The math doesn't bother me at all, but when I have to do all the math for every roll and consult the charts - forget it. It cuts into my beer time.
When we (my friends and me) played Rolemaster and MERP 20 years ago, we did all the math in our head (well, except for XP accounting, we used paper for that), and it worked fine. Nowadays, I don't think I would be capable of doing that. :(
Vampire the Masquerade: I really loved this game, but I got fed with it. The metaplot, rolling so many dice and getting 1's that cancel your successes, that ruined it for me. There was a time when I was hooked on the metaplot and I read as many splatbooks as I could, but ironically, I liked the game most in the beginning, when there were few supplements and the setting was mysterious and unknown.
Ars Magica: Especially 3rd edition, my favorite one, it makes my imagination fly like no other. What ruined it for me? Too many skills, and the fact that you need a very committed group to really enjoy this game. Creating two characters per player, plus several grogs, plus the covenant, it is too much. 4th and 5th edition reduced the number of skills (an improvement), but the rules got more and more complex. Besides, 5th edition feels like, how to say it, synthetic, lifeless.
RuneQuest 3rd: It will always have a special place in my heart, but MRQII, and afterwards Mythras, happened. In my opinion, Mythras is better than RQ3 in everything.
In general, any game that has a long list of skills. I can't stand it anymore.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1039694Mythras - Too crunchy, wouldn't run, still a great game though
Did you have a look at Openquest? It is RuneQuest light
Quote from: Claudius;1039704Did you have a look at Openquest? It is RuneQuest light
Did, yeah, it's okay. I'll stick to Stormbringer for my BRP-fix.
5th edition. I'm not sure why, I bought into it heavily when it was first released, but for some reason it just hasn't been able to hold my attention. I feel like in some sense it tries to ride the fence between different styles of play and fails to really capture any of them.
Quote from: Arkansan;10397095th edition. I'm not sure why, I bought into it heavily when it was first released, but for some reason it just hasn't been able to hold my attention. I feel like in some sense it tries to ride the fence between different styles of play and fails to really capture any of them.
This is very true
Quote from: Arkansan;10397095th edition. I'm not sure why, I bought into it heavily when it was first released, but for some reason it just hasn't been able to hold my attention. I feel like in some sense it tries to ride the fence between different styles of play and fails to really capture any of them.
Yes. Which is why I'd never run it using the default rules. I'm quite happy to run it with some tweaks to a more defined, older school style. I think I could probably happily run it in a couple of other styles, too, but can't say for sure since I haven't tried yet.
It's a good base for tweaking something into a great campaign. It's a little sterile for just running with no such tweaks.
Quote from: Arkansan;10397095th edition. I'm not sure why, I bought into it heavily when it was first released, but for some reason it just hasn't been able to hold my attention. I feel like in some sense it tries to ride the fence between different styles of play and fails to really capture any of them.
A-ha! :( That's where you've been. Wandering the desert why you feel disconnected from D&D 5e. :D Yeah, when running my (mostly) RAW PbP again there is definitely an element of "how could I truly challenge them without them being under siege?" Then I realized I cannot logically do so, and left you guys to self-motivation in the sandbox.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1039359Do you have any games that you used to like playing, but that for one reason or another you've soured on? If so, why?
d20 in general. When D&D 3 came out, I thought it was the best system ever and bought a ton of derivative games. Now, I doubt I'd ever play a d20 game ever again.
Feng Shui, to a lesser extent. This was my go to game for a long time, now I dunno...maybe I'm just burnt out on HK action.
Any game with a lot of "Character optimization" and/or complicated character generation. Any game where you have to very carefully pick feats/ powers/ etc. and if you fuck up it leaves you with a limp-o PC.
When I was a kid I could get into that but in my middle age that stuff just feels like doing taxes. It's like I have to finish my Math homework before I'm allowed to have fun.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1039359Do you have any games that you used to like playing, but that for one reason or another you've soured on? If so, why?
GURPS, because uber rules bloat.
Quote from: DeadUematsu;1039612so it wasn't like the system was the core issue.
I respectfully disagree.
When we have the two main rpg companies with complex and crunchy system Hero System and Gurps. The first is on life support the second has cut back on publishing Gurps products at least for the time being and would probably be in the same boat as Hero if SJG did not have Munchkin. Then system is a issue. Anecdotally both are virtually non-existent in my neck of the woods. Common sense dictates that when a company has to cut back or stop publishing their core rpg one can assume their products are not selling. Enough of the fanbase at least to myself have voted with their wallets and seem to want to to give their money to rules light, less crunchy systems like Fate and Savage Worlds. Personally I don't like it is what it is. I don't see the trend reversing itself anytime soon imo. Pointing the blame at a certain segment of gamers who like to game the system and like making powerful characters seems like it's being in denial about it imo. I don't like such players personally yet even successful rpgs have that problem. As for GR M&M I enjoyed the flexibility of the rules I dislike the damage mechanic. Ironically enough I prefer how Hero system handles damage.
As for GR and M&M between the Sulemain fiasco, the inability of some of their devs to not lash out at the fanbase, a new edition of the rpg or something along the lines of a 3.5. edtion of their rpg. Well they have other more pressing issues with sales then just the rules imo.
I'm digging some Hero System right now. Most fun I've had in years. If everything vanished except Hero and Sine Nomine stuff, I'd be just fine.
Quote from: Claudius;1039703In general, any game that has a long list of skills. I can't stand it anymore.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1039873GURPS, because uber rules bloat.
Please let me add
GURPS to my list too. For me the rules are fine, the problem is the bloated lists of skills, advantages and disadvantages.
I would be quick to add GURPS too, except that I never used to enjoy it. If we are going that route, I'll add WoD (original, never played new), FATE, Modipheus's 2d20 system, and... OK, so I'd probably never finish that list.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1039359Do you have any games that you used to like playing, but that for one reason or another you've soured on? If so, why?
I liked playing AD&D1 but did not feel that it was an improvement, except in a few details, over OD&D. I played in a long but infrequently-run campaign from the mid-eighties until the GM stopped running it a couple of years ago. Looking at the rules, I don't know if I would play it again. I feel nostalgia for Simon's kitchen table and the players but not for the game.
I thought I
loved Shadowrun but I've since seen that the GM wasn't using the rules as written, not at all close. I'd play in that campaign again but it really isn't Shadowrun. The game looks like a shapeless kluge.
For me it is more genre, I'm burned out on superheros, Star Wars and grimdark likely because of being inundated by these in other forms of entertainment . . . movies mostly, I expect.
BRP in a general sense. I was introduced to the ttrpg hobby by this family of games, so I have a special soft spot for them. But I just can't bring myself to play games based on this engine anymore. Not even Call of Cthulhu. It only ends up in endless tinkering and I can't stop myself. It got a realistic tone and feel, but I just don't want that anymore. And maybe I never really did. One of the main reasons I started to favor D&D(TSR) was that is was more abstract and it was ok being just that. While I think BRP is more about simulating a world while D&D felt like it just simulating adventuring. I also started to detest long and very detailed skill lists. In theory I still think BRP is better than D&D in the sense of being a mutation from D&D aimed to solve the abstract nature of Class, Level, Armor Class, Saving Throws, Skills etc. It did produce a platonically better game, Runequst, that made more sense. But when it made more sence it was not as fun anymore.
But I do hope to buy and run Pendragon some day.
I agree, to a degree, with those who said Rolemaster. I can still use it if I house-rule it heavily (and then it is quite fun, actually). But as written, I just can't handle it anymore. I suppose that this is also true for most (or all) versions of D&D, but I was always just a player, I never ran that as DM.
Ars Magica doesn't hold any appeal anymore, nor does DC Heroes, though I would referee the latter if my players were genuinely interested, and I use the World At War sourcebook whenever I have an excuse to.
All Flesh Must Be Eaten has been replaced by Dead Reign.
I have not considered refereeing Call of Cthulhu since the bad joke that is 7th Edition was published. I think this more to do with having other games to referee and play since I have earlier editions.
I doubt I could put up with all the mechanical moving parts of the rules to the Warhammer 40,000 role-playing games. I am hopeful for Wrath & Glory.
I am unlikely to play Green Ronin's A Song of Ice & Fire again. It is just a very uninteresting system. I haven't looked at the Guardians of Order A Game of Thrones book in a long time, so I don't know how I would feel about using that one.
Quote from: Trond;1039986I agree, to a degree, with those who said Rolemaster. I can still use it if I house-rule it heavily (and then it is quite fun, actually). But as written, I just can't handle it anymore. I suppose that this is also true for most (or all) versions of D&D, but I was always just a player, I never ran that as DM.
I would run MERP or Rolemaster again with the right people - that is people who know the system and/or people who are competent at the 2 and 3 digit maths. It is just not likely to find a group like that. RM is just not a good casual RPG. You need some dedicated nerds.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1039359Do you have any games that you used to like playing, but that for one reason or another you've soured on? If so, why?
Pathfinder. I went to and enjoyed three of the PaizoCons. But some of their choices related to their products and the culture of their forums sort of put me off them. The wave of OSR games turned me on to simpler systems that seemed to be produced more for fun rather than demonstrating how diversity sensitive the company is.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1039936I liked playing AD&D1 but did not feel that it was an improvement, except in a few details, over OD&D. I played in a long but infrequently-run campaign from the mid-eighties until the GM stopped running it a couple of years ago. Looking at the rules, I don't know if I would play it again. I feel nostalgia for Simon's kitchen table and the players but not for the game.
I love D&D. It's like a freakin family member. I grew up with it, I fought with it, and formed my best memories with it, but I can't hardly stand it as a rules system anymore. Twice a year I get worked up about it and run a session in anticipation of a new campaign, and it just leaves me flat and annoyed.
Quote from: Madprofessor;1040074I would run MERP or Rolemaster again with the right people - that is people who know the system and/or people who are competent at the 2 and 3 digit maths. It is just not likely to find a group like that. RM is just not a good casual RPG. You need some dedicated nerds.
As far as the Rolemaster math goes, we just used a calculator. Sometimes we would also program in a D100 on the calc, but rolling actual dice was usually more fun.
By using calculators and post-it notes on the various charts, I found that RM ran as quickly as almost any other RPG, so that was never the problem for me. It was more the fact that the game makes things unnecessarily difficult for low level characters, and it was almost as if the rules had a fetish for penalties.
Quote from: Trond;1040086As far as the Rolemaster math goes, we just used a calculator. Sometimes we would also program in a D100 on the calc, but rolling actual dice was usually more fun.
By using calculators and post-it notes on the various charts, I found that RM ran as quickly as almost any other RPG, so that was never the problem for me. It was more the fact that the game makes things unnecessarily difficult for low level characters, and it was almost as if the rules had a fetish for penalties.
It certainly did. 1d100 plus a skill+attribute at 1st level from around 10 to 25 with difficulty mods from +30 to -70. And you usually had to roll above 100. Moreover, almost all printed source material from ICE was -20 and harder.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1039359Do you have any games that you used to like playing, but that for one reason or another you've soured on? If so, why?
Dungeon World, mostly. I think I only enjoyed it all because I was suffering from d20 burnout at the time.
I still write stuff for it, and I'll still play and run it if someone
really wants to run/play it, but if I'm feeling like going dungeon crawling I prefer d20 stuff because I'll get the same tone, plus it's faster and easier.
For example, in D&D if you attack an ogre you either hit and deal damage or miss, and then on its turn the ogre tries to hit you. Quick and easy.
In DW you can hit the ogre and deal damage (10 or higher), hit the ogre and then the ogre does something to you (7-9), or miss (6 or less) and then the GM can just come up with whatever they feel makes sense at that point in time. Could be damage, could be damage and you get knocked back, could be damage and your shield is shattered, could be damage, you're knocked back, your shield is shattered,
and your arm is broken. Could be something else entirely (you're knocked over a cliff, into lava, weapon flies out of your hand). It just depends, and it can be a lot to juggle (especially for new GMs).
Some things also don't make any sense, like adventuring gear, which just so happens to contain whatever five items you happen to need at a point in time (could be all torches, could be torches and rope, could be torches, rope, and pitons, you'll never know until you look inside), but it will always have a weight of 1, just like elven bread. Or like leather armor, which weighs just as much as chainmail
and provides identical protection. Or going from a known location for some reason requires only one person to watch the entire party's food supply, only one person to look out for danger, and only one person to make sure everyone's going the right way.
Rifts Chaos Earth was one that I had high hopes for.
Between PB claiming it was a "complete" rpg. Then removing the magic, psionic and creatures from core and selling them separately. Not a deal breaker as they are not the first company to do something along those lines. The original background for the rpg was that while their was a nuclear exchange between countries it was to a smaller degree so many countries and their governments and infrastructure survived fairly intact. Except for poor Mexico they always get screwed over. Humanity has a chance a slim chance to turn back the tide. Instead as usual Kevin could not leave well enough alone so he just had to change it suit his vision. We are left with a rpg where no matter what happens the humanity loses. Your characters can put up the good fight yet it's all for nothing. No one in my gaming group wants to play the PB they would love to play the original version of the rpg. At least in Rifts their is hope for humanity. The only reason I would buy the rpg is to mine it for new occs/rcc. power armor and robots.
I did have a brief period where I thought GURPS was cool, back in my teens.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1040327I did have a brief period where I thought GURPS was cool, back in my teens.
I sort of liked GURPS 3rd ed. although I thought weapon damage was unnecessarily complex. I guess I could have gotten used to it, but they completely lost me with 4th edition. I didn't like the massive rules books, I didn't like the art, and I think I didn't like the rules changes either (as far as I remember).
Quote from: Trond;1040399I sort of liked GURPS 3rd ed. although I thought weapon damage was unnecessarily complex. I guess I could have gotten used to it, but they completely lost me with 4th edition. I didn't like the massive rules books, I didn't like the art, and I think I didn't like the rules changes either (as far as I remember).
As someone who's only ever really been happy with TFT and GURPS, and is still happy with GURPS, even I find the GURPS 4th edition Basic Set cumbersome and overwhelming. But it turns out that the game buried in there isn't really much different or any more complex than 3rd edition. It's just that they threw practically every character trait and skill from almost all previous world books into the Basic Set, and made the point-cost calculations for several types of advantages and things into more generic forms... which even I find to be overkill unless/until someone wants to use it, which for most of that content, I don't. In fact, I started mostly not caring about character points. So sadly the 4e Basic Set seems like an obstacle to new players (or even old players) instead of an invitation to something immediately playable. It's still a good resource for expert players and GMs wanting a toolkit to build a new setting, if they can sift through/out what they don't need.
I used to enjoy Shadowrun. BitD, me and some other people were into 1e. We had a completely ridiculous munchkin style game where everyone ran around in full heavy body armor with assault cannons as their sidearms. When we weren't doing runs we'd start gang wars for kicks, or maybe set up ambushes for Lone Star. Eventually, everyone was a millionaire and Predators (as in from the movies) started invading.
When 2e came out, we didn't like it. The GM also got tired of the game. I played in one other 1e game later in the decade with a couple of the other people. After that, the most involvement I've had with Shadowrun is the Genesis game. I've never looked at anything 3e or beyond.
I still have my 1e books. I dumped my copy of 2e long ago as I had no nostalgic attachment and didn't want to play it. I don't have any desire to play 1e either, but flipping through the books recalls fond memories for me.
Quote from: Skarg;1040470As someone who's only ever really been happy with TFT and GURPS, and is still happy with GURPS, even I find the GURPS 4th edition Basic Set cumbersome and overwhelming. But it turns out that the game buried in there isn't really much different or any more complex than 3rd edition. It's just that they threw practically every character trait and skill from almost all previous world books into the Basic Set, and made the point-cost calculations for several types of advantages and things into more generic forms... which even I find to be overkill unless/until someone wants to use it, which for most of that content, I don't. In fact, I started mostly not caring about character points. So sadly the 4e Basic Set seems like an obstacle to new players (or even old players) instead of an invitation to something immediately playable. It's still a good resource for expert players and GMs wanting a toolkit to build a new setting, if they can sift through/out what they don't need.
Somewhere inside Gurps is an awesome RPG screaming to get out.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1040327I did have a brief period where I thought GURPS was cool, back in my teens.
I had a lot of GURPs 3e books. I really liked that system for a while. The number of times I could get a group to play it? One. I ran one game. It was Cyberpunk. It was fun, and it could have kept going if the players kept interest. However, the one book I will never regret buying was GURPs Space. That book had some really nice world building stuff which I used quite a bit in several different game systems.
Quote from: Aglondir;1041042Somewhere inside Gurps is an awesome RPG screaming to get out.
And it's such a soft scream now...
GMs who learn GURPS well and do the rest of the work to make a campaign that's ready to play, and who have players, continue to run nice games with it. But I think 4e's density and format, while good for devoted/experts, is hard for new people to get through (or to see why you'd want to). I think the older lighter editions were much more digestible for new players (and even for me).
Quote from: Skarg;1041137GMs who learn GURPS well and do the rest of the work to make a campaign that's ready to play, and who have players, continue to run nice games with it. But I think 4e's density and format, while good for devoted/experts, is hard for new people to get through (or to see why you'd want to). I think the older lighter editions were much more digestible for new players (and even for me).
Skarg you have single-handedly done more to convince me to try GURPS than any living human. Just so you know.
Quote from: Azraele;1041138Skarg you have single-handedly done more to convince me to try GURPS than any living human. Just so you know.
Wow, thanks for mentioning it. :-)
There aren't really any games I used to enjoy, but which I no longer like. I suppose the closest thing would be D&D 3e and beyond, but I don't actively hate modern D20 games or their derivatives; I'd be more than happy to play almost any game if it's a campaign premise I think is interesting and the group seems like one I'd jive with.
Now, as far as what I want to run, that pretty much always falls to GURPS these days. Not due to any active dislike of other games, more just due to the fact that I only have so much time and energy and I'm already very comfortable with running and tweaking GURPS for my gaming needs/desires. You could call it a mixture of familiarity, fondness and laziness. I very rarely feel there's something I want to do that I can't already with my current go-to. I do enjoy reading new games and learning + stealing from them for my own purposes quite a bit, but there isn't much I feel that I'd get out of familiarizing myself with a new set of rules or etc. I'm having plenty of fun as-is, and so are my players (or, they keep coming back at least).
If I were pressed to name a game I'd be determined not to run anymore, I guess I'd probably say either Burning Wheel or Fate. It's not that I think they're poor games necessarily, but rather I've digested them and played them enough now to realize their core design goals and assumptions don't really align with my personal preferences and they don't fulfill some of my gaming needs at all (by design; not everyone cares about the same stuff I do). Same as anyone else, I don't like having to enter a mental battle with a game I'm playing each time I need to lean on the rules to resolve something. So instead, I just use the rules I like.
This has been a very wordy way of saying "not really any," I guess. I still like most of the same things in gaming that I did 15 years ago, and still dislike a lot of the same things (I can just articulate them better now; thanks to many long-standing internet arguments for honing those skills).
Pathfinder.
Too much maths and rules. Too much grid.
One game I'd like to play again, though, would be Cyberpunk (2013 ?). But this time, instead of playing a vicious mercenary whoring for big bucks, I'd like to play a vicious genius of an (pseudo-)anarchist hell-bent on murdering meagacorps (and their henchmen):D.
Champions.
The game system it is based on entered a death spiral of complexity in its character generation system the moment Steve Long got associated with it. Something that utterly turned me off the game.
I have games now that do the job better for me than Champions used to. And I'm happy with them.