No probs!


Also while I'm here, on the topic: I'm in the camp where I prefer somewhat crunchy rules. If a system is too rules-lite and number-free I may find it bland.

As a player, I find a game a bit unexciting if the character options or power level is more limited - games where characters are just lists of skills aren't that exciting to me, at least not without a particularly awesome character concept (I don't like BRP so much for example; on the other hand I've never played GURPS but I can see the appeal).

From a design angle, games are fairly bland if I can't find any new ideas anywhere in it (though I find most games have something worth stealing somewhere, however small).

It requires a pretty herculean effort for an actual SYSTEM to be bland.  In a lot of cases, its not so much the system itself as the presentation that makes it bland.  
There are game systems that are bland in the sense of being tedious, ponderous, and failing at effectively doing what they're meant to do in an exciting way.  I would say the HERO system/Champions is the best example of this.

The best example of a truly bland system is Nobilis.  Borgstrom tries to cover it up with extremely byzantine language, but its basically just a beancounting exercise.  
Some games in trying to cover up perceived blandness only make things worse; I wouldn't call Savage Worlds a terribly bland system, but clearly its author thought there was something wrong with it, hence the need for Jack the grinning skull or whatever, and presto, the game seems more stupid and annoying to me than it possibly could have before.

Now SETTINGS, on the other hand, can easily be incredibly bland.  If all you have is generic fantasy world #924587 with nothing special to distinguish the culture, or geography or background history of the setting, you've pretty much created blandness.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;431916Some games in trying to cover up perceived blandness only make things worse; I wouldn't call Savage Worlds a terribly bland system, but clearly its author thought there was something wrong with it, hence the need for Jack the grinning skull or whatever, and presto, the game seems more stupid and annoying to me than it possibly could have before.

Smiling Jack annoyed the fuck out of me when I first read SW, and actually drove me away from it. It was only several months later that I actually gave the system a try, persuaded by SW fans at the Big Purple, and fell in love with the game.

Thankfully, the Explorers' Edition is Smiling Jack-free.

I generally find rules light games bland, but that's not exactly it.

I think its more games that rely on you to add setting and activities without inspiring any to be sort of bland. I absolutely agree that without creative input from the group, the gaming will be bland. But if your GAME offers nothing and relies on the group to provide all content of interest, what use is your game?

I liked Smiling Jack!  It was a nice change from the "RPG as textbook" syndrome that too many games suffer from.  Good, bad or annoying, I prefer to hear the author's voice.

I only think "bland system" when its a ripoff of another game system, like the fantasy heartbreaker that's 90% D&D while declaring itself totally new.

Quote from: Spinachcat;432023I only think "bland system" when its a ripoff of another game system, like the fantasy heartbreaker that's 90% D&D while declaring itself totally new.

Okay if were one were compiling a list of top 10 all time games I can see why you might exclude the unoriginal D&D or other game knock off. But in practical terms if you are actually playing the game, does the fact that it is a knock off actually matter?

You can do Author's Voice without it being fucking annoying.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Soylent Green;431635What makes a system bland and is that a bad thing?

I suppose the reverse question - what makes a system fun - is easier to answer but the specifics will vary from person to person.

For some a fun system is one with exciting, unpredictable features like critical tables or exploding dice.

Some people enjoy using the game mechanics creatively, as in original applications of spells, clever use or Fate style Aspects or building the best possible a character from fixed budget of points.

Others might fun a system that offers deep tactical choices. If you are into guns you might feel it's important that armour-piercing rounds act differently form hollow points (or something, I don't really know enough about guns to make a useful example).

And then there is an entirely different school of thought that says that bland is good. The system should be invisible, something that fades entirely in background. It's the characters and situations that are meant to be interesting, not the mechanics.

So all in all I guess there is no real right or wrong answer, but I am just curious, what makes a system bland for you and is it really an issue?

I've never really thought of any system as bland, it's always individual games.  I suppose that Hero (one of my very favorite systems) could be considered bland given its focus on simulating any genre, and the core fifth ed. book is pretty bland for anyone coming to to it with no background (haven't seen the sixth ed. yet but with same writers and editors it is probably the same).  GURPS should be blander than it is.  If I had to identify a system as bland it would probably be the early eighties boxed set of Traveller booklets.  If you did not have a fully developed SF imagination (or a sci-fi one) it was pretty much a game of trying to establish profitable interstellar trade routes,reminiscent of the infamous "triangle" slave trade.