TheRPGSite

Kinda companion thread to the others I started a while back.

What I'm looking for here are those games that maybe lived up to the hype with every other gaming group, and was everything you wanted it to be, but after playing the first and subsequent sessions the game just left you feeling ill and empty inside. Now I know this will be very subjective, but I'd like your opinions to be at least backed up with something tangible.

I'm looking for that game in which you read the reviews, adore the designer or publisher, bought the rules, liked it and started buying up the other books in the line, only to find when you sat down and ran the game, it left you cold and wondering exactly what you're meant to do with the game.

Essentially the game sounded good in principle, but a dead duck when it came to presenting it at the table. The other players may have bought into it as well, sweep up in the hype.

Now maybe your players agreed with you, and you collectively dumped the game within a few sessions, never to return, or perhaps they loved it despite you hating the game to death.

Has this ever happened to you?

DC Adventures/M&M 3rd edition.  Also Icons!

I don't believe it to be a coincidence that both were designed by the same person.

Aces & Eights for me. All those detailed systems slow the game to a crawl. Not exactly a desired feature of a fast paced western game.

I guess maybe I'm a game optimist because I just haven't really had this problem. But I chalk part of that up to having played the same game for twenty years now-with a few small breaks; and low expectations on my part of RPG's. My buy in to make a game fun is just pretty low. A few good ideas is all I really need.

The closest this happened to me is AD&D 3e, however I never bought the materials. I worked in a game store at the time of release and all my coworkers and friends already bought a copy of everything as it was coming out.

I remember as we went through the rule changes i found things I always wished previous editions had. A good example is spell caster Concentration. Another is tactical maneuvers game focus, with more minis. Melee being harder to disengage (AoO and 5' steps to this day trigger mild nausea). Initiative being rolled before actions declared, greater HP progression, evened out XP tables, etc. Everything I thought I wanted in a new D&D.

Boy, was I wrong. In practice it perpetually devolved our games into endless metagaming bitchfests with agonizing interludes of spell caster dominance playing Belle of the Ball co-GM whenever the poor GM fell into the Rules As Written clutches. And then there's the power inflation that became more arcane in its prerequisite system mastery, with its accompanying ever-pervading fear of Inflation-as-All-Consuming-Oblivion chasing down parties into optimized builds as some sort of hyper-evolution. Oh god, the pain...

I can honestly say I've never played a fun game of D&D 3e. Not one, and damn have I tried. I can't think of an RPG I hate more. It's absolutely true when they say be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

Same for me with DC Heroes. I was revved up about it after reading a review in Dragon, but the one time we tried it, for us it ended up with most of the session being point-spending, then too many tables in actual play.
I suppose things might have been different if they hadn't sold out of 2nd ed (which supposedly had this "action wheel" instead of tables) and made people play pregenerated heroes :(

Mutants & Masterminds.

I played in  couple of cool convention games and bought second edition to use in some convention games of my own. Did two but the rules never got a good flow in game and I find character creation a chore. So the next game in my superhero series will be written for BRP instead.

I'm sure there's a good game in there, especially if you really get the rules under your skin, but I simply don't have the patience for it. So all in all I found M&M a disappointment.

OSRIC is to me.   It is nothing but a knockoff...

4E Essentials D&D.

Initially I thought 4E Essentials would be easier to play than the original Heinsoo 4E D&D.

But after playing it for several months late last year, I found it was just as tedious to play as Heinsoo 4E.  Playing a knight, slayer or rogue was not much better than playing similar Heinsoo 4E counterparts.  Low level combat encounters were still taking 45 minutes to over an hour to adjudicate.

In the end, it was another waste of 30 bucks (for the first two 4E Essentials books).

This is a toss-up for me.

Hackmaster - the alleged jokes and humor really really really detracted from what might have been a stellar re-representation of AD&D.  YES I KNOW THEY HAD TO PUT THEM IN THERE.  

Mekton Zeta/Zeta+ - I was so looking forward to a nice, cleaned up Mekton+MTS system and instead they threw everything out and started over and nothing was worth a fig.

Castles & Crusades.  Yes, I know I wrote for the system and worked with the Trolls, and this isn't a slight to them personally in the least, but I found the Prime system onerous, I didn't care for the art or layout, the adherence to ascending ACs, the saves system, and on and on.  Yes, I am told, but you can just flip the AC system, drop Primes, reuse AD&D's saves and...yeah but man at the end of the day why don't I just stick with what's already there?  Hackmaster and C&C might have been there the firstest but as re-presentations of AD&D, OSRIC had the mostest (and I don't think it's perfect by a long shot).

Gamma World 6E/7E
We always new radiation didn't work that way. I knew when I was 8. That doesn't mean we cannot enjoy the fantasy of mutant irradiated shapeshifting plants, or eye laser shooting racoons or what have you. Its sad that exempting the need to use D&D spells, the Omega World article did them both better.

I haven't really had this happen... usually, if I'm not going to like a game I'll realize it long before it gets on the table.
Deadlands/Savage Worlds did kind of surprise me in how I didn't care for them despite high expectations (that were based on little more than hearsay).

When I read the thread title I thought that "criminally" meant "disappointing due to either malpractice or active intent". In this case my answer is straight: D&D 4E. However the enthusiastic reviews and the specific kind of hype that surrounded it (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35776) were the very first signs that it was going to be stupid, so it is not an answer to your question (*).

Hmmmm... strange... the only game that qualifies, for me, is Risk - which is not an RPG at all, of course, but which is up there with Monopoly in popularity and still makes my nose bleed with boredom and me put baffled question marks around his success.

Partially GURPS 3E, which I actually loved and played a lot, but that suffered from fatal idiosyncrasies that jumped on you on the most unexpected moments and had to be house-ruled to hell before the game became fun again.

And partially MERP: great fluff (Moria!), but I.C.E. choice of RM Lite for the crunch was a disgrace.

Pathfinder, now that I think about it. Which is a bit of a paradox, since I'm happy that 3.5E lives on, viva Pathfinder and stuff. But they didn't really fixed the problems of the earlier game, and the Pathfinderunfanboys agree that "The biggest open beta-testing evah'" was a little bit a total farce. At the end the best solution, if one has 3.5E on the shelf, is to download the free conversion booklet and maybe buy the PDF of the main book, integrate the best bits (like the skills' streamlining, the streamlining of combat maneuvers and the new cantrips rules) and live happily ever after.

(*) I still consider the $$$s I spent for the two FR books - bought in Washington D.C. while vacationing there, read with increasing disbelief over a week, and left in a bin at the airport - as money lost due to malpractice, though.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;496723OSRIC is to me.   It is nothing but a knockoff...

wasn't that the point?  :huhsign:

CthulhuTech didn't turn out to be quite what I wanted it to be. Unhallowed Metropolis, either. Supernatural, Serenity--any other great licenses bolted to that Cortex system. I dislike the rules enough that it detracts from play. That doesn't happen with me very often.

Quote from: Lawbag;496695Essentially the game sounded good in principle, but a dead duck when it came to presenting it at the table. The other players may have bought into it as well, sweep up in the hype.

Unknown Armies - disliked running it, but the players really wanted to try it. I tried to run it as I figured it was intended, and the players seemed to like it, but I couldn't really get that interested.

Seventh Sea was the opposite - I'm not particularly interested in pirates, but the game was fun for the session or two we had with it.

Quote from: Silverlion;496727Gamma World 6E/7E

For me it was Gamma World 5e (Alternity). I don't usually get carried away by the hype surrounding a new release, but when word came on the old Gamma World newgroup that out the game would get a new lease of life as an Alternity release I was excited by the promise of a modern, skill based system of Gamma World with high production values.

But before the game was even out the whole Alternity line was cancelled and when the Gamma World book was finally release it was awful, awful, awful. I may not like the 6th (D20) and 7th (D&D4e) version of Gamma World, but I respect what they are trying to achieve and understand why some people might like them. But regarding the 5th edition the things they did to the setting, the absurd choice of player races (Sasquatch are a core race, seriously?) and the obvious lack of interest in the subject matter by the author were just unforgivable.

I couldn't even finish reading Houses of the Blooded and was expecting a great deal from it. That's the only game I can think of that really let me down.

Quote from: Soylent Green;496740But regarding the 5th edition the things they did to the setting, the absurd choice of player races (Sasquatch are a core race, seriously?) and the obvious lack of interest in the subject matter by the author were just unforgivable.

Andy Collins claims his first victim?
(EDIT: I don't hate everything he ever did, but I have very mixed feelings about, say, his Epic Level Handbook and...well...have said enough about 4th ed. D&D already. "On the internet, silence is death" and all that.)

star frontiers, "3rd ed." a.k.a. zebulon's guide to frontier space.  the color success chart and new mechanics never flew with our group, and we ended up dumping the system and just running classic traveller instead.  sad way for a fun game line to die. . . .

traveller 4e (we skipped TNE).  i bought just about everything for it but our group kept thinking in megatraveller terms.  still, T4 had good art and ideas in the gear/weapon books, so they weren't a complete loss.

At one end of the spectrum, D20 and MERP - both were sort of a creeping malaise, one with the system and the other with how the setting was handled.

At the other end, Polaris and 1001 Nights - both instant dislikes that didn't live up the the promise for me.

Castles and Crusades - This should have been so good.  It's not.  From the designer's obsession with encumbrance (and refusal to just use the weights) to their horrible primes system the suck of which knows no bounds to the failure to balance the weapons, Castles and Crusades is a pile of dung.

I honestly believe that a properly designed C&C would have made the entire OSR unnecessary.  As it is it just showed it could be done and gave impetus to the revolution.

Quote from: David Johansen;496758I honestly believe that a properly designed C&C would have made the entire OSR unnecessary.  As it is it just showed it could be done and gave impetus to the revolution.

Bingo.

I really like C&C.  But I didn't get into gaming until the early 90s, so I missed old school D&D.

The only game that ever really disappointed me was probably Geist: The Sin Eaters by White Wolf.  I've come around to a different opinion since (as I mentioned on my show (http://2gms1mic.com)), but when I first got it...I was bummed by it not being a brilliant re-imagining of Wraith.

Riddle of Steel was a huge disappointment, as was Nobilis. I got them back when I thought RPG.net's advice on RPGs was worth anything (2003-2004) and regretted both for being totally inadequate compared to the raving adulation of e-fans.

Spirit of the Century.  It's like I had convinced myself I was going to hang out with this really cool, interesting person, only after I'd sprung for dinner and drinks found out he was a boring, self-involved prat.

Burning Empires

I can't honestly say I've ever been gravely disappointed by an RPG that I fully expected to love. But in spite of doubts about any story-game darling, I certainly expected more substance out of The Mountain Witch.

MRQI was a disappointment. It was hard to miss the mark with such a firm foundation of a classic game to build on, plus tons of enthusiasm and input from the playtesters and original writers like Steve Perrin, but they did.

There's a RPGnet interview where Matt Sprange was interviewed around the time of the release, and was asked why he chose to do RQ. He responded that the license was available, so even though he was a d20 guy he thought he would write the game. He just had to be the main writer even though he'd never possibly played RQ in his life....

Mongoose did redeem themselves substantially with RQ2, admittedly.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;496722Mutants & Masterminds.

I played in  couple of cool convention games and bought second edition to use in some convention games of my own. Did two but the rules never got a good flow in game and I find character creation a chore. So the next game in my superhero series will be written for BRP instead.

I'm sure there's a good game in there, especially if you really get the rules under your skin, but I simply don't have the patience for it. So all in all I found M&M a disappointment.

I agree. I found it far too clunky and consequently disappointing.

Cthulhutech was also disappointing: the setting doesn't really make sense and the rape gangs...yeah we didn't need that.

Exalted 2nd Edition, ChthulhuTech and any non-Strands of Fate FATE-based RPG.

The first was, as we all know, a horrid mess that doesn't need to be explained. The second was just...dumb. A crappy 90s-WWish system tacked onto a goofy setting that had too much going on and made little sense. Add in the asshat comments from Mike V and it just fell apart. Finally, until SoF FATE just didn't make sense and was a headache to think of playing.

There are others, but those are the biggies.

Wait, there's the WH40K lines, which have pretty stupid fluff at points (treadmill-run attitude thrusters? Really?) and a poop system made this pretty cool setting a pain to experience.

OK, there's also Anima. Dig the setting a lot, but the rules make me cringe. They seem workable, but with a lot of work.

Alternity - That fucking basic dice mechanic just killed the potential for that game deader than ratshit.

Exalted. The introduction is all like "epic mythic fantasy stuff! Beowulf! The Iliad! The Bhagavad Gita!" followed by 200+ pages of shitty Dragonball Z- and JRPG-inspired otaku fail.

FATE 3.0. By no fault of its own, admittedly. I bought into the RPGnet hype and never did warm up to the system as a GM; too abstract for me. I might be playing a Legends of Anglerre game in 2012, though, so maybe it'll click to me as a player.

Scion, bloody Scion. Here I thought I was getting my hands on a urban gods setting by WW that from the previews oozed cool. Except, I should have payed attention to the absolute lack of mechanical fluff in the early previews. The warning sign should have been "Exalted 2nd Edition" based rules...but easier. Okay, seriously wtf? They took one of the most complicated games timing rules out on the market (save maybe Burning Wheel) and took the blood guard rails off. If it wasn't bad enough that Exalted 2 was buggy as a barn, this poor thing was just pure unplayable.

Cthulutech, great concept but terrible rule scaling. And the writers had this weird bug about "you're doing it wrong" when players started wanting hybrid games. Well DUH, what did you think people were going to do.

Too many to list really.

The D20 version of Gamma World. The 1992 edition is my favorite. I was looking forward to seeing it updated to D20, a system that I love. And we got... crap. There is a Pathfinder game called Warlords of the Apocalypse that might fit the bill. If it ever sees print. I recommend The Mutant Epoch for those yearning for the GW feel.

C&C was a major let-down for me. I've been playing D&D since 1978. I read C&C and thought it perfectly captured the feel of 1E. And it reminded me of why I no longer play 1E. I immediately sold the book and bought a D20 supplement.

Quote from: Mostlyjoe;496803Scion, bloody Scion. Here I thought I was getting my hands on a urban gods setting by WW that from the previews oozed cool. Except, I should have payed attention to the absolute lack of mechanical fluff in the early previews. The warning sign should have been "Exalted 2nd Edition" based rules...but easier. Okay, seriously wtf? They took one of the most complicated games timing rules out on the market (save maybe Burning Wheel) and took the blood guard rails off. If it wasn't bad enough that Exalted 2 was buggy as a barn, this poor thing was just pure unplayable.

Have you checked out Part Time Gods (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=92731/?affiliate_id=357321)?  It's way easier than Scion and probably outdoes Scion in Scion-ness.  I've heard it described as "Scion done right" and I can't help but agree.  

I don't want to sound like too much of a shill here, but my co-host did a full review of it in Episode Eleven (http://2gms1mic.com/2011/08/30/episode-eleven-nothing-rhymes-with-eleven/) of our show.

Quote from: VectorSigma;496768Spirit of the Century.  It's like I had convinced myself I was going to hang out with this really cool, interesting person, only after I'd sprung for dinner and drinks found out he was a boring, self-involved prat.

Well put.

RPGPundit

Quote from: VectorSigma;496768Spirit of the Century.  It's like I had convinced myself I was going to hang out with this really cool, interesting person, only after I'd sprung for dinner and drinks found out he was a boring, self-involved prat.

That was my exact experience with it as well.  It pretty much soured me on the idea of FATE-based games in general.

Quote from: VectorSigma;496768Spirit of the Century.  It's like I had convinced myself I was going to hang out with this really cool, interesting person, only after I'd sprung for dinner and drinks found out he was a boring, self-involved prat.

Quote from: misterguignol;497008That was my exact experience with it as  well.  It pretty much soured me on the idea of FATE-based games in  general.

I'm ever so glad I didn't fall for the nice cover illustration when I was on the lookout for a pulp game and got spared this experience. None of the, overall very positive, reviews made it seem appealing to me, nor particularly appropriate for pulp.

I've never actually read any FATE-based game but what I read and hear about it doesn't appeal to me at all. Not sure why exactly, as there's a couple of Fudge-based games that I really like.


Anyway, the only criminally disappointing game for me was Mouse Guard. Perhaps if I had been more familiar with Burning Wheel I would have known what to expect. I couldn't even finish reading the rules part. Fortunately the setting information is nicely done.

Quote from: misterguignol;497008That was my exact experience with it as well.  It pretty much soured me on the idea of FATE-based games in general.

Same here! It took StarBlazer Adventure and Diaspora to redeem FATE for me. SBA was gloriously sprawling, and Disapora elegant and refined, but both were great games!

-clash

Yeah, Alternity was bad.  Terrible dice mechanic to be sure but also multiple damage scale shifts and armor scale shifts.  I don't like scale shifts at the best of times.

Well, if we're talking about games I've bought and then was disappointed upon reading, that's a huge list.

But games I've actually played and then was disappointed?

Well,Godlike for one. I'd even used the ORE system before, and it was fine for Nemesis, but completely inadequate for what Godlike wanted to be. And how the #$%* do you put out a game about playing soldiers in WWII and not include mass combat rules of any sort?

MERPs. I wanted to like this. Rolemaster has some cool ideas, and I'm a huge fan of the modules MERP did. But, first off, chargen was a nightmare, but it doesn't end at chargen because each "leveling up" was also a nightmare. I'm there to roleplay, not do accounting for 15 minutes or more. The magic system was trash. And the whiff factor in the game was ridiculous. Basically everything Rolemaster tries to do as a system, WHFRP 1E did for us easier, better, and faster. And it in no way suited the setting; not even a little. (sigh) at least I can still look at the pretty Angus McBride art.

Marvel SAGA - Nothing really too bad to say about the system, other than we just didn't like it. I didn't like the card mechanics, I didn't think it did Supers as well as any of the other supers games I owned, and there didn't seem to be any point to the game outside of combat.

Changeling: the Dreaming - What a mess. Ditto Wraith: The Oblivion. None of us even bothered with Werewolf, whose concept was way too twinky, but Vampire and Mage had both led to some good games, even if the system had some wonky elements. But Changeling...oh, how I wanted to love Changeling.

Quote from: David Johansen;497034Yeah, Alternity was bad. Terrible dice mechanic to be sure but also multiple damage scale shifts and armor scale shifts. I don't like scale shifts at the best of times.

Hmm...I'd agree it was pretty bad but what do you mean by 'armor scale shifts'?
 
I vaguely remember it rolling armor absorbtion with d4s, d6s, etc...

Eclipse Phase.

Great idea, interesting setting, half-decent art, but the system was mediocre and the GM advice downright horrible in spots.

If I were ever going to do a serious campaign with it, I'd probably use the CC license as an opportunity to port it over to another system.

Quote from: Soylent Green;496740For me it was Gamma World 5e

Yeah I can't blame you there, I don't think malfeasance was involved though, just bad ideas.

Quote from: TristramEvans;497040Marvel SAGA - Nothing really too bad to say about the system, other than we just didn't like it. I didn't like the card mechanics, I didn't think it did Supers as well as any of the other supers games I owned, and there didn't seem to be any point to the game outside of combat.

It's funny because my friends loved it--found it elegant and simple, and used it for a LOT of long campaigns with role-playing plots. It just goes to show you different people see different things.

Quote from: Silverlion;497059It's funny because my friends loved it--found it elegant and simple, and used it for a LOT of long campaigns with role-playing plots. It just goes to show you different people see different things.

Yeah, I've no real criticisms of the system, it just didn't "do it" for us.

Reed Richard's Guide to Everything is probably one of the best supplements put out for any Marvel supers RPG ever though. A copy of it sits inside my FASERIP boxed set to this day.

In the long run, 3E/3.5/Pathfinder.

Nothing was really fixed in 3.5, even more was not fixed in Pathfinder, and yet people effectively keep buying reprints of the same stuff that's available online for free. For a system that's one of the worst mainstream examples of promoting system mastery at the expense of actual inclusive fun. And splatbooks made by people who admit to not even knowing how to balance their own preferred system but want to produce ideas nonetheless; the OGL is seriously the worst thing to happen to gaming. Hell, even Pathfinder devs admit to having no idea how their system works but saying, "But hey cool ideas that have no mechanical support are worth it! What do you mean mechanical support in addition to cool ideas would be better." Giving idiots with delusions of game design carte blanche to make their own near-official additions to the system was nothing short of hilarious over-estimation of the community on WotC's part. I'm just glad they've learned from it and gone to a slightly more restrictive licensing policy that's still more inclusive than almost any other system in the industry today.

D&D, as the frontrunner in the industry by default, should at least take a better tack than, "Haha your caster took Toughness as a feat? Scrub! You're objectively worse than the caster that took Spell Focus because he knew Toughness was a trap feat," or, even worse, "Haha you chose Fighter! You should have known that martial characters only exist to enable casters!"

Metamorphosis Alpha for The Amazing Engine. Such a great, vivid, gameable concept, destroyed by bland, imagination- and enthusiasm-free writing and the bland, generic game system TSR bolted on it.

Quotethe OGL is seriously the worst thing to happen to gaming.

I disagree strongly. From the sounds of it, you didn't like the D20 system at all - which is cool; I don't care for it even a little bit myself -so, it would not matter if the OGL had existed or not. 3rd and 3.5 would still have existed, there simply would have been less products for them.

In the meantime, the OGL opened the way for a host of other, non-d20 games and basically kickstarted the online independent game movement; it opened the way for a flood of retro-clones which suddenly turned on a new generation of gamers that had been raised on White Wolf and Rifts to "Old School" role playing (granted many still don't get it, but, well, that's people); and even though there was a ton of crap for D20, there are still any number of worthwhile games that would never have existed otherwise.

Anyways, I can't imagine why you bought the game three times if you didn't like it the first time around, unless you did like the system and there was just little fixes you wanted? I mean, was it something you couldn't easily houserule -because otherwise what did you keep on with the system for?

Because he had hoped it would improve, and that's the whole point of the topic?
:idunno:

Transhuman Space. The more I think about it or attempt to play it in various forms, the more criminally dissapointing it gets. I still really want to like this game but....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Darwinism;497100"Haha your caster took Toughness as a feat? Scrub! You're objectively worse than the caster that took Spell Focus because he knew Toughness was a trap feat," or, even worse, "Haha you chose Fighter! You should have known that martial characters only exist to enable casters!"

Truth is: the idea of "system mastery" is delusional, because it assumes that every game starts with a blank, clean state, like a game of Magic: the Gathering, and not with variables like the world's background and stuff.

Some months ago I stumbled upon The Gaming Den (http://tgdmb.com), a place where people who suffered from a serious nervous breakdown while studying for the math terms seeks solace in role-playing.

Browsing the forums you will find all kinds of hypercomplex equations about why the "Halfling Giant Killer" prestige class is "broken" since an human Pyromancer who takes "Improved Peeing" (which doesn't need the "Iron Bladder" prerequisite like "Biospray" does) can get a +4 vs. Annoying Creatures anyway without sacrificing the "I'm a Tall Dude" advantage.

What you will not find is what happens when the campaign is set on an island where good halfling fight evil giants, and wizards are so outlawed that they are nuked by satellite-fired tactical nukes everytime they cast "Mending" - which is what 90% of good campaign settings are about.

So, don't fear to welcome your "elf mastery" expert in your game: it will make the game even more interesting when he discovers how in the kingdom of "Humanonia" non-humans are tried and executed on the spot - no lawyers allowed.

QuoteDarwinism;497100]In the long run, 3E/3.5/Pathfinder.

Nothing was really fixed in 3.5, even more was not fixed in Pathfinder, and yet people effectively keep buying reprints of the same stuff that's available online for free. For a system that's one of the worst mainstream examples of promoting system mastery at the expense of actual inclusive fun. And splatbooks made by people who admit to not even knowing how to balance their own preferred system but want to produce ideas nonetheless; the OGL is seriously the worst thing to happen to gaming. Hell, even Pathfinder devs admit to having no idea how their system works but saying, "But hey cool ideas that have no mechanical support are worth it! What do you mean mechanical support in addition to cool ideas would be better." Giving idiots with delusions of game design carte blanche to make their own near-official additions to the system was nothing short of hilarious over-estimation of the community on WotC's part. I'm just glad they've learned from it and gone to a slightly more restrictive licensing policy that's still more inclusive than almost any other system in the industry today.

D&D, as the frontrunner in the industry by default, should at least take a better tack than, "Haha your caster took Toughness as a feat? Scrub! You're objectively worse than the caster that took Spell Focus because he knew Toughness was a trap feat," or, even worse, "Haha you chose Fighter! You should have known that martial characters only exist to enable casters!"

:boohoo::boohoo::boohoo:     :rotfl:

QuoteAnyways, I can't imagine why you bought the game three times if you didn't like it the first time around, unless you did like the system and there was just little fixes you wanted? I mean, was it something you couldn't easily houserule -because otherwise what did you keep on with the system for?

That is very easy to answer.  It is called "BEING STUPID"....LOL

Darwin, Pathfinder is a kids game.

The following first level characters with the following feats:

Fighter: Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Finesse

Wizard: Toughness, Alertness

Cleric: Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot

Rogue: Power Attack, Sunder

Will mop the fucking floor with a CR 4, just like any other party, let alone the CR 1s and 2s they will normally be fighting. Optimal characters just make more work for the GM. Unless you are some kind of dumb bastard rules lawyer that makes Chaotic, highly optimized player characters, doesn't help the other people at the table, and then attacks them, your whining about balance won't be a problem.

Quote from: Melan;497105Metamorphosis Alpha for The Amazing Engine. Such a great, vivid, gameable concept, destroyed by bland, imagination- and enthusiasm-free writing and the bland, generic game system TSR bolted on it.

Oh yes. Goddamn Amazing Engine - high ranking on my list of most disappointing games/set of rules. I still think there is a really good game and setting hidden in For Fairy, Queen and Country, but the book is a mess and the rules are dodgy and flawed.

For me it was In Nomine.  At the time we were all heavily into World of Darkness and were desperately looking for a cool-as-pie angels game.  What In Nomine seemed to deliver was a comedy game that I ended up hating.  Looking back over the game a couple years ago, I realized there wasn't anything there inherently comedy but oddly enough every time I played it at a con (including with Steve Jackson), it was a shade more serious than the Three Stooges.  Something about that game really pushes people into the comedy realm.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;497052Hmm...I'd agree it was pretty bad but what do you mean by 'armor scale shifts'?
 
I vaguely remember it rolling armor absorbtion with d4s, d6s, etc...

Yes but you've got the Poor, Ordinary, and Good shifts for the weapons and the armor and then whatever the success shifts were.  It was a cludgy nightmare.

Amazing Engine had a number of great sourcebooks with a decent core mechanic and the most dreadful mess of a stat generation system ever seen in gaming (quite a feat when you think about it).  But yeah!  Bug Hunters, Faery Queen and Country, Metamorphasis Alpha, and Tabloid all deserved so much better.

Quote from: Ian Noble;497145For me it was In Nomine.  At the time we were all heavily into World of Darkness and were desperately looking for a cool-as-pie angels game.  What In Nomine seemed to deliver was a comedy game that I ended up hating.  Looking back over the game a couple years ago, I realized there wasn't anything there inherently comedy but oddly enough every time I played it at a con (including with Steve Jackson), it was a shade more serious than the Three Stooges.  Something about that game really pushes people into the comedy realm.

I seem to recall Benoist being really disappointed by the English version of that game. I can't remember now though. In any case, your not the first person to say this here.

Quote from: Reckall;497126So, don't fear to welcome your "elf mastery" expert in your game: it will make the game even more interesting when he discovers how in the kingdom of "Humanonia" non-humans are tried and executed on the spot - no lawyers allowed.

That just sounds like passive-aggressive bullshit to me.  Also why I'll never create a setting without pitching it to the players or having them contribute something.

Quote from: Ian Noble;497145For me it was In Nomine.  At the time we were all heavily into World of Darkness and were desperately looking for a cool-as-pie angels game.  What In Nomine seemed to deliver was a comedy game that I ended up hating.  Looking back over the game a couple years ago, I realized there wasn't anything there inherently comedy but oddly enough every time I played it at a con (including with Steve Jackson), it was a shade more serious than the Three Stooges.  Something about that game really pushes people into the comedy realm.

Quote from: Cranewings;497160I seem to recall Benoist being really disappointed by the English version of that game. I can't remember now though. In any case, your not the first person to say this here.

Probably because the French superior original was a rather comic and iconoclastic game.

QuoteDarwin, Pathfinder is a kids game.

The following first level characters with the following feats:

Fighter: Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Finesse

Wizard: Toughness, Alertness

Cleric: Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot

Rogue: Power Attack, Sunder

Will mop the fucking floor with a CR 4, just like any other party, let alone the CR 1s and 2s they will normally be fighting. Optimal characters just make more work for the GM. Unless you are some kind of dumb bastard rules lawyer that makes Chaotic, highly optimized player characters, doesn't help the other people at the table, and then attacks them, your whining about balance won't be a problem.

I do not think so...  This is all dependent if the players roll the dice in their favor or not.   So, nope.  You are wrong...

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;497197I do not think so...  This is all dependent if the players roll the dice in their favor or not.   So, nope.  You are wrong...

If every check was a simple flip of the coin you'd be right. Optimizing characters, however, is about manipulating probabilities in your favour and shifting the expected result.

Quote from: Ian Noble;497145For me it was In Nomine.  At the time we were all heavily into World of Darkness and were desperately looking for a cool-as-pie angels game.  What In Nomine seemed to deliver was a comedy game that I ended up hating.  Looking back over the game a couple years ago, I realized there wasn't anything there inherently comedy but oddly enough every time I played it at a con (including with Steve Jackson), it was a shade more serious than the Three Stooges.  Something about that game really pushes people into the comedy realm.

Yeah, as mentioned above, SJG really toned down the comedic irreverence from the source material (likely because it was just over 10 short years from America's last crusade against "ungodly rpgs"). Nothing really stops you from playing a more serious game, however. Usually the foremost complaints are the imbalance of powers (which never really bothered me) and the divorced Degree of Success die (which is IMHO far more controllable than people complain about).

But yeah, if you have players buying into another game framework than you, it'd probably make you disappointed. Imagine my frustration when I kept ending up in Vampions! in the WoD...

All comes back to open table discussions before game play, doesn't it?

(Edit: Y'know, now as I think about it, I think having one-shots at a convention might have something to do with it. There's something about the format where a medium to large sized, disparate party comes together for long-term-consequences-free adventure. Hmm, if I was to write a drama for a con, it'd have to be very tightly constructed or have veteran players who want to buy into a drama. Sounds like a real challenge indeed.)

Quote from: Brad J. Murray;497200If every check was a simple flip of the coin you'd be right. Optimizing characters, however, is about manipulating probabilities in your favour and shifting the expected result.

My point is that the odds are so in your favor its a fluke if you actually lose, even with my crappy team, even against a CR 4. Certain CR 5 encounters, like a bunch of goblins, wouldn't even be bad.

Who gives a rogue Power Attack?

Quote from: B.T.;497278Who gives a rogue Power Attack?

LOL, that is my point.  Why would you do that?  What a waste....LOL

Oh please. Str based rogue with a splash of fighter for Martial weapons + Greataxe + Power Attack = Slayer.

Rincevent wins.

Also, since someone just reminded me of it, In Nomine from SJG. Way to lamefy an originally awesome game, guys...

Quote from: B.T.;497278Who gives a rogue Power Attack?

Right. Exactly. That's what I'm saying.

I'm saying that Pathfinder is a kids game and their crying over balance is stupid because a sub-optimal team will crush CR +2 and +3 opponents. It is that easy if you play it by the book.

Quote from: Benoist;497287Rincevent wins.

Also, since someone just reminded me of it, In Nomine from SJG. Way to lamefy an originally awesome game, guys...

Finally years of playing NWN online paid off.

Btw - if someone is interested and knows French, all In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas were released officially as scans by the company that published it.

http://www.xxiemeciel.com/ins_ebook01.php

Based on my limited interaction with the company freelancers, I don't think anyone at SJG ever took the game seriously.  In Nomine Anime was their preferred company internal variant, and while they said repeatedly how much Good Omens was their primary inspiration they seem to have focussed entirely on the Pratchett while ignoring the Gaiman.

Quote from: daniel_ream;497297Based on my limited interaction with the company freelancers, I don't think anyone at SJG ever took the game seriously.  In Nomine Anime was their preferred company internal variant, and while they said repeatedly how much Good Omens was their primary inspiration they seem to have focussed entirely on the Pratchett while ignoring the Gaiman.

A bit funny, given how they are an American firm and all the "controversy" about Gaiman's name being on top of Prachett's in American edition of GO, and vice versa.

Even funnier, because I really didn't find Good Omens that close to original INS (or even a good book, sadly) - it was more along the lines of "Dogma" cranked up on iconoclasty about 10x.

Every time I flip thru my copy of Gustav Davidson's Dictionary of Angels (http://www.amazon.ca/Dictionary-Angels-Gustav-Davidson/dp/002907052X), I keep thinking that there is a fantastic RPG waiting to be made there, but neither In Nomine nor any other game touching on the subject matter has hit the right note yet.

Quote from: TristramEvans;497316Every time I flip thru my copy of Gustav Davidson's Dictionary of Angels (http://www.amazon.ca/Dictionary-Angels-Gustav-Davidson/dp/002907052X), I keep thinking that there is a fantastic RPG waiting to be made there, but neither In Nomine nor any other game touching on the subject matter has hit the right note yet.

We ran a game with angels once (and some characters were drawn from DoA in fact) but they were hunting other angels in Las Vegas and used holy firearms. The last scene was a theology debate with gunplay. The villain was shot, inferring mortality, but one of the protagonists was overcome by his villainous arguments and made a free choice, unmaking him as an angel.

The system was not explicitly designed for angels.

Quote from: Darwinism;497100D&D, as the frontrunner in the industry by default, should at least take a better tack than, "Haha your caster took Toughness as a feat? Scrub!

"Haha! You moved A2 to A4 on your first move? Scrub!"

Chess truly is a failure as a game.

(Or, to put it another way: Oh, this nonsense again... (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-ivory-tower-design))

Quote from: Reckall;497126Truth is: the idea of "system mastery" is delusional, because it assumes that every game starts with a blank, clean state, like a game of Magic: the Gathering, and not with variables like the world's background and stuff.

Furthermore, the entire idea that you can provide meaningful choice in a flexible system without also making it possible for people to make substandard choices when aiming for one particular outcome among many is a delusion.

Quote from: David R;497119Transhuman Space. The more I think about it or attempt to play it in various forms, the more criminally dissapointing it gets. I still really want to like this game but....

Speaking truth here. I've read through the corebook three times. It's fantastic. But there's no game in there. There's nothing to play.

Quote from: jeff37923;496785Alternity - That fucking basic dice mechanic just killed the potential for that game deader than ratshit.

Wasn't some of the Alternity stuff also released for d20 Modern? Was that any better?

In Nomine failed as a game because it didn't get the theme or balance correct. It didn't know what game it wanted to be, a divine comedy, a deadly serious rpg with biblical themes or a superhero game where angels were the good guys etc.

The rules reek of a first draft, as the game had been in development and dumped and re-written so many times that I'm sure SJ just said 'release it'. At the time the game had the same reputation as a sequel to Duke Nukem, vapourware.

My biggest issue (apart from the rules being all over the place, literally making a character requires understanding and reading of almost every chapter - e.g. hit points are in the combat section and not in character generation) is why they didn't do a straight translation of the original rules? I'd put the same accusation at White Wolf with their piss-poor rendition of the German rpg Engel.

Oddly despite the rules, every session I've played of In Nomine has been a sheer joy, a blend of the dark macabre, comedy and politicking.

XXX

And until the release of The One Ring, I've been foolishly convincing myself that MERP was the best rpg ever, and a perfect fit for Middle Earth...

Quote from: TristramEvans;497316Every time I flip thru my copy of Gustav Davidson's Dictionary of Angels (http://www.amazon.ca/Dictionary-Angels-Gustav-Davidson/dp/002907052X), I keep thinking that there is a fantastic RPG waiting to be made there, but neither In Nomine nor any other game touching on the subject matter has hit the right note yet.

Well duh, that is because you did not check out Testament: Roleplaying in Biblical Times by Green Ronin Publishing.

Check it out, I find it fulfilling...

Quote from: Lawbag;497345The rules reek of a first draft, as the game had been in development and dumped and re-written so many times that I'm sure SJ just said 'release it'. At the time the game had the same reputation as a sequel to Duke Nukem, vapourware.

My biggest issue (apart from the rules being all over the place, literally making a character requires understanding and reading of almost every chapter - e.g. hit points are in the combat section and not in character generation) is why they didn't do a straight translation of the original rules? I'd put the same accusation at White Wolf with their piss-poor rendition of the German rpg Engel.

OMG, the editing and organization is so piss poor. I love the game and system, but that was the most unforgivable part of the core book. I have had to write my own "Player's Screen" so players can get enough rule highlights and tables to quick start the game.

Unbalanced powers I'm cool with. Actually, I don't know if you can balance the powers as they are so powerful, but in very different directions. That and the game is a big toolkit blob of combat, politics, and espionage. You just have to have a good GM pick and choose the setting dials and build the game's genre frame.

Oddly enough, when I picked through INS/MV through the free online materials (this was a year or so ago, I believe) it really let me down. Maybe it was my abysmal French not getting the richness of the setting. But the mechanics and world, after all that I read about, it just didn't do anything for me. I had no interest in playing that much of an iconoclastic comedy and the mechanics didn't do all that much for me (didn't like the difficulty table; glad that IN SJG moved away from more tables later on). However there's lots of tidbit spells and stuff that seem juicy, but takes a while for my meager translation skills. Different strokes, I guess.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;497332Wasn't some of the Alternity stuff also released for d20 Modern? Was that any better?

It was, and in spite of the d20 issues with modern firearms, it was better just because it didn't have to use the dice mechanic of Alternity.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;497402Well duh, that is because you did not check out Testament: Roleplaying in Biblical Times by Green Ronin Publishing.

Check it out, I find it fulfilling...

I've heard of it before but have never run across it as yet. I was under the impression that it was a historical game set in Biblical times rather than an exploration of Medieval Christian Angel Mythology though?

Quote from: Lawbag;497345In Nomine failed as a game because it didn't get the theme or balance correct. It didn't know what game it wanted to be, a divine comedy, a deadly serious rpg with biblical themes or a superhero game where angels were the good guys etc.

The rules reek of a first draft, as the game had been in development and dumped and re-written so many times that I'm sure SJ just said 'release it'. At the time the game had the same reputation as a sequel to Duke Nukem, vapourware.

My biggest issue (apart from the rules being all over the place, literally making a character requires understanding and reading of almost every chapter - e.g. hit points are in the combat section and not in character generation) is why they didn't do a straight translation of the original rules? I'd put the same accusation at White Wolf with their piss-poor rendition of the German rpg Engel.

I so agree with all this. Mind you, the French also thought they could fix the game after two editions and started streamlining it and "fixing" it in 3rd ed, which led to glaring errors of design, and 4th edition which really is a different game altogether with some hilarious part such as "I don't give you a full set of combat rules because in the end it must be all fiat, I'm lazy about it and I don't want to pretend otherwise" almost word for word, I kid you not!

1st-2nd ed INS/MV is where it's at. It's a MARVEL of a game. Totally awesome. One of the best French role playing games ever, and SO French in nature... it's refreshing in comparison to North American designs, really.

There was a game that came out in the early aughts called Danger Quest, from Torchlight Games. One of the few times I've ordered a game online just based on the cover and description. I was very excited for it's release.

(http://www.scifigenre.com/beta/itemImages/ACD%5C156201235671.jpg)

Great Idea. Great Cover. Great Art. Great Genre. Great Setting.


AwfulAwfulAwfulAwfulAwfulAwful Rules.

Seriously, just crap in a basket.

Too bad.

Quote from: Benoist;4974191st-2nd ed INS/MV is where it's at. It's a MARVEL of a game. Totally awesome. One of the best French role playing games ever, and SO French in nature... it's refreshing in comparison to North American designs, really.

How do French designs/presentation differ from games an anglophone like myself would have been exposed to?

Quote from: TristramEvans;497423How do French designs/presentation differ from games an anglophone like myself would have been exposed to?

To begin with - if you are playing a devil, you roll a critical success if you roll 666 (the mechanic generally uses d666, except that it's really 3d6 but you treat each die separately). If you are an angel, you roll a critical success if you get 111 if I remember correctly.

I have read INS like 3 years ago, so bear with me if I am not a specialist on the topic.

Generally it's supposed to be a bit comedy in iconoclastic style of Dogma(except cranked up to that level of heresy that only French can delivery;) ) , as I posted before. The mechanics are generally very simple - even simplistic. And I think there wasn't very much of the usual shocker "abortion and rapez jokes", but I'd not bet my hand for that - as I said, I don't remember the rulebook very well.

The Polish translation of the game was rather well written I have found (which suggests so did the original). Plus it breaks fourth wall hard in the text.

Quote from: TristramEvans;497423How do French designs/presentation differ from games an anglophone like myself would have been exposed to?

Well first there's less bagage I feel as far as expectations are concerned. For instance, when the French create a medieval fantasy game, it doesn't have to be a fucking carbon copy of D&D with orcs and shit all the time. This leads to awesome games such as Rêve de Dragon, Agone, Bloodlust, Hurlements and the like.

Second, in the case of INS, the way it's so French is mostly because of its pastiche and cynical, blasé humour, its blatant anticlericalism, its disrespect for pretty much anything and everything that can be made fun of, and yet... under all that blatant humour there is a serious game to be found, a great background, some great investigations and campaigns and characters and politicking and all sorts of things. To put it in contrast with the SJG version, it's like the guys of SJ thought of redoing the mix of themes for In Nomine by tuning every component down so the game would be "less offensive" to Americans, while in fact the secret recipe of INS is that everything is tuned up to 11, the humour AND the other more and and less serious elements that go into it. INS/MV is like a dish where all the spices conflict against each other and blast your tastes spots to create a blend that surprises you as you say "but but... but... that's actually really good in a very weird way !" SJG In Nomine by comparison tried to make everything more subtle, and the result was indeed a game you read and you have a hard time figuring out what it tries to be... like it confuses your tastes spots and just end up tasting like papier maché in your mouth, to go on with the dish allegory.

See what I mean?

For me, D&D 3rd edition.

I thought I liked it at first, but after a few years of playing it, I discovered that I wasn't actually having any fun at all, and that game sessions largely consisted of a table full of players reciting numbers at one another.

Turns out, the game is really just a rules mastery arms race that only the 'sperg-est of aspie basement cases could actually stand to run. 3rd editon is is less a game, and more a form of masturbation for high functioning autistics in my estimation.

Granted it's not like 4E is much better in that regard, but where I merely dislike 4th edition, I loathe 3rd edition with the intensity of 1000 suns, and I can't wait for that game to die.

The game did manage do a few things right, all of which has been distilled into C&C, which thankfully eschews the rest of the game's "innovations".

Quote from: Declan MacManus;497522Turns out, the game is really just a rules mastery arms race that only the 'sperg-est of aspie basement cases could actually stand to run. 3rd editon is is less a game, and more a form of masturbation for high functioning autistics in my estimation.

You seem to be confusing autism with "gets off on math". The two really have nothing in common, outside of an awful 80s Tom Cruise film. Very few actual (not "self-diagnosed") autistics will have anything to do with gaming actually. The problem is, the types of freaks who are attracted to gaming are also the kind of freak to check out a copy of the DSMV from the library and diagnose themselves with the "coolest" disorder they can scratch up some reason to self-identify with.

Quote from: TristramEvans;497526You seem to be confusing autism with "gets off on math". The two really have nothing in common, outside of an awful 80s Tom Cruise film. Very few actual (not "self-diagnosed") autistics will have anything to do with gaming actually. The problem is, the types of freaks who are attracted to gaming are also the kind of freak to check out a copy of the DSMV from the library and diagnose themselves with the "coolest" disorder they can scratch up some reason to self-identify with.

lol. it is called the K&KA disorder....LOL

Ahh, so there really is something lost in translation. Unfortunately I am nowhere near fluency to appreciate something like that. In fact, I'm now sorta glad IN SJG took a more subtle and ambiguous approach because that's kinda what made me so interested in it in the first place.

But that doesn't mean I dislike INS/MV. I just have problems appreciating it from its perspective. Apparently I just need to: a) get better at French, b) put away 3e and read 1e or 2e instead, and c) prepare myself for a melange of extremes dialed to 11 with a distinctively French aesthetic. That's actually been very helpful, Benoist! Thanks.

You're welcome mate.

If you want to get the more immersive part of the game, check out the backgrounds of the Archangels and Demon Princes in particular. Supplement 11, Scriptarium Veritas, is actually the most comprehensive book that records their attributes, personalities, lists of powers and so on. Each one has a half a page of fiction attached to it as well. It's just a must have for the game, really.

So. With that, and all the (hilarious) tiny pieces of fiction scattered throughout the game/supplements, and the actual adventures published for the game, you get a different picture than just the straight pastiche. I recommend campaigns like Berserker (Supplement 4, First Edition, actually not a campaign but a series of separates adventure and all the stuff having to do with Vikings and warlocks, the best part being the introduction of the Third Force, the "others" in the Big Game), Baron Samedi (Supplement 5, First Edition, a huge awesome campaign that has to do with the Vaudou. One of the best campaigns of RPGs ever, up there with Masks of Nyarlathotep and so on - yes, it's that good), Il Etait Une Fois (Supplement 8, all adventures having to do with Time Travel), Insh Allah (Supplement 10, First Edition, all about muslim angels and demons and how they fit into the Big Game between God and Satan, with really big awesome scenarios).

So... yeah. I just recomment the first ed in fact. Start from the very beginning. And just go down the supplements chronologically from there. It's the best thing to do, in fact.

Pathfinder.  Much wasted potential.

Quote from: TristramEvans;497421There was a game that came out in the early aughts called Danger Quest, from Torchlight Games. One of the few times I've ordered a game online just based on the cover and description. I was very excited for it's release.

(http://www.scifigenre.com/beta/itemImages/ACD%5C156201235671.jpg)

Great Idea. Great Cover. Great Art. Great Genre. Great Setting.


AwfulAwfulAwfulAwfulAwfulAwful Rules.

Seriously, just crap in a basket.

Too bad.

But in fairness, that is a really cool cover.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;497522For me, D&D 3rd edition.

I thought I liked it at first, but after a few years of playing it, I discovered that I wasn't actually having any fun at all, and that game sessions largely consisted of a table full of players reciting numbers at one another.

Turns out, the game is really just a rules mastery arms race that only the 'sperg-est of aspie basement cases could actually stand to run. 3rd editon is is less a game, and more a form of masturbation for high functioning autistics in my estimation.

It is system mastery in, system mastery out, though. We did not play it as a game of competing character builds (and changed / retired the few PCs that got out of hand), and it worked well enough. It was still a numbers-heavy game with a heavy character customisation component, which is why we switched to a lighter alternative, but much of that particular problem is self-inflicted.

A bit like alcoholism, actually: it is not the responsibility of the liquor that some people are hell-bent on ruining their lives with it.

Quote from: B.T.;497590Pathfinder.  Much wasted potential.

Or not.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;497560lol. it is called the K&KA disorder....LOL

Jesus Christ, did the K&KA guys rape your mom or something?  You bring it up in nearly every thread you post in.

Quote from: B.T.;497590Pathfinder.  Much wasted potential.

How was it wasted???   What would it have been if you made the decisions???

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;497671How was it wasted???   What would it have been if you made the decisions???

Most people complain that the fighter class wasn't taken from the Book of Nine Swords.

Quote from: Cranewings;497688Most people complain that the fighter class wasn't taken from the Book of Nine Swords.

LOL, are you serious???

Quote from: The Butcher;496802...

FATE 3.0. By no fault of its own, admittedly. I bought into the RPGnet hype and never did warm up to the system as a GM; too abstract for me...

Me too. I still don't dig game play. Keeps bringing everyone OOC to engage the system parts. Feels more like a bunch of people collaborating on a movie script than actual roleplaying (to me).

Quote from: Peregrin;497056Eclipse Phase.

Great idea, interesting setting, half-decent art, but the system was mediocre and the GM advice downright horrible in spots. ...

+1. I would like to give EP the "Qwixalted" treatment. My roommate designed Qwixalted, so I have some resources to tap. :-D

Quote from: trechriron;497700Me too. I still don't dig game play. Keeps bringing everyone OOC to engage the system parts. Feels more like a bunch of people collaborating on a movie script than actual roleplaying (to me).

I think the trouble with Fate is that people take the rules too seriously. Take any other game and there is a good chance the GM is ignoring a whole bunch of rules  and giving the whole thing his own spin because that's just the way it is. And you happen to run that odd session in which no one even touches the dice, that's cool too. But when it comes to Fate it's like you got to use all the rules all the time or your not doing it right.

Fate started working a lot better for me the moment I said to myself "Screw that" and simply used the rules as and when the felt right for me.

Quote from: Soylent Green;497704Fate started working a lot better for me the moment I said to myself "Screw that" and simply used the rules as and when the felt right for me.

Thats why FATE 2nd edition is the only iteration of the system I'd consider running.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;497671How was it wasted???   What would it have been if you made the decisions???

I would have fixed the math, for starters.  Then I would have rebalanced a lot of things.

Quote from: Cranewings;497688Most people complain that the fighter class wasn't taken from the Book of Nine Swords.

I don't like BoNS.

True 20.

My strengths as a GM are about running games where the rules and setting have room for crazy action and good humor. My True 20 game managed to be as dull as plain oatmeal.

Quote from: JamesV;497735True 20.

My strengths as a GM are about running games where the rules and setting have room for crazy action and good humor. My True 20 game managed to be as dull as plain oatmeal.

Then it fit the Blue Rose setting well.

Gamma World: The person writing it kept going on and on about how it "Isn't your daddy's Gamma World!" and it came across as terrible. I had the old 1E box, and the boxed set with Pitz Burke in it, and loved it. I bought the new Gamma World, then eBay'd it with "Buy it Now!" at $2.50 to some other sucker.

d20 Ravenloft, by Arthaus. Damn, that version sucked. It's like they took everything cool about Ravenloft and threw it away.


I also didn't like the d20 Star Frontiers, the new version of Shadowrun, or 3E Forgotten Realms.

Quote from: David Johansen;496758Castles and Crusades - This should have been so good.  It's not.  From the designer's obsession with encumbrance (and refusal to just use the weights) to their horrible primes system the suck of which knows no bounds to the failure to balance the weapons, Castles and Crusades is a pile of dung.

I honestly believe that a properly designed C&C would have made the entire OSR unnecessary.  As it is it just showed it could be done and gave impetus to the revolution.

Can you elaborate on why you think the primes system is 'horrible'? I ran C&C last night for a group of young people and had no issues.

Quote from: T-Willard;497798Gamma World: The person writing it kept going on and on about how it "Isn't your daddy's Gamma World!" and it came across as terrible. I had the old 1E box, and the boxed set with Pitz Burke in it, and loved it. I bought the new Gamma World, then eBay'd it with "Buy it Now!" at $2.50 to some other sucker.

I take it you mean the piece of shit Bruce Baugh wrote that misappropriates the Gamma World name?  At least in a way he was being honest, its not "your daddy's GW", since its not GW at all.  Of course, that's only a good thing if you begin from the basic premise that GW is a stupid game that's somehow shameful because it embarrasses Swine, and should be destroyed, which is precisely the perspective Baugh had as he was writing the game he called Gamma World.

RPGPundit

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;497903Can you elaborate on why you think the primes system is 'horrible'? I ran C&C last night for a group of young people and had no issues.

Well, first off it's a "magic bullet" that fails to hit any of the targets.

It's supposed to replace skill lists but it's vague and uninspiring.  Nobody looks at a prime and says, "So I should know all about the lost library of Mu."

It's supposed to promote niche protection but it only makes characters useless in 50 to 66 percent of all activities.

The modifier range is so broad as to make a 3 as good as an 18.  And a non-prime is crippling at any level unless the GM lets you add your level to all tasks and not just class related ones.

It is applied unevenly, doing nothing for combat activity.  So a character who is hell on wheels in Strength will still never do more damage or hit more often.

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;497903Can you elaborate on why you think the primes system is 'horrible'? I ran C&C last night for a group of young people and had no issues.

If I want to deal with Primes, I will play Transformers...   :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;497913I take it you mean the piece of shit Bruce Baugh wrote that misappropriates the Gamma World name?  At least in a way he was being honest, its not "your daddy's GW", since its not GW at all.  Of course, that's only a good thing if you begin from the basic premise that GW is a stupid game that's somehow shameful because it embarrasses Swine, and should be destroyed, which is precisely the perspective Baugh had as he was writing the game he called Gamma World.

RPGPundit

I think he meant the new one with the cards.

Quote from: joewolz;498934I think he meant the new one with the cards.

No, I think he's indeed referring to Bruce Baugh's version for d20 Modern, the 2003 6th edition.

The new one's crap too, but on an entire order of magnitude less. It still more or less gets it at least, and isn't a product that INTENTIONALLY set out to insult and punish gamma world fans for liking gamma world.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;499422The new one's crap too, but on an entire order of magnitude less. It still more or less gets it at least, and isn't a product that INTENTIONALLY set out to insult and punish gamma world fans for liking gamma world.

RPGPundit

Yeah, I think I'd have to say d20/OGL Gamma World was the most disappointing game I ever purchased.  I gave it to charity; last time I checked they still had the books.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;499057...Bruce Baugh...

He must be a horrible person.

Quote from: S'mon;499548He must be a horrible person.

He is, in every way imaginable.

RPGPundit

For me, it's the Gumshoe system. I've played a few iterations of it, and I just can't get into it. To be fair, though, I hate investigative games, which all seem to boil down to pumping the GM for information. Gumshoe streamlines that process, but the game is still about that activity. I'd rather be doing stuff.

Gumshoe takes the disappointment prize for me too. I liked the investigative bits, but the combat system never really worked to the point where I realized that I had started avoiding creating adventures where combat seemed like more than a remote possibility. This sucks because Mutant City Blues had some really brilliant ideas in it.

I fixed combat in a rather simple way - each time the side  that scores a hit, is simply the side that rolled more. Hit Threshold is the basic bonus you get to the roll.

Quote from: RPGPundit;499712He is, in every way imaginable.

RPGPundit

Then you may be pleased to know that when I google "Bruce Baugh", #2 result is
Bruce Baugh can go Fuck Himself With a Spoon  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=2427e) :D

Quote from: S'mon;499778Then you may be pleased to know that when I google "Bruce Baugh", #2 result is
Bruce Baugh can go Fuck Himself With a Spoon  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=2427e) :D

bruce BAWWWWWWGH ... ugh, need I say more?

I actually liked Serenity RPG. No fireworks, but it worked fine for us.

Quote from: Rincewind1;499865I actually liked Serenity RPG. No fireworks, but it worked fine for us.

I disagree.

(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/387643_2996282234689_1491218642_33094304_1227928696_n.jpg)

Quote from: jeff37923;499870I disagree.

(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/387643_2996282234689_1491218642_33094304_1227928696_n.jpg)

You disagree on what? That it is a mediocre product like I said more or less, or that it worked for us? :P.

Quote from: S'mon;499778Then you may be pleased to know that when I google "Bruce Baugh", #2 result is
Bruce Baugh can go Fuck Himself With a Spoon  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=2427e) :D

Seriously? Oh.. that is fucking SWEET.

RPGPundit

Weird.  I don't have a single problem with Castles & Crusades; in fact, it did for me what Iron Gauntlets didn't.

Quote from: jeff37923;499870I disagree.

(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/387643_2996282234689_1491218642_33094304_1227928696_n.jpg)

Firefly really IS like Traveller! A lot of potential, less-than-perfect execution; fucked up as much by outside forces as by its own creators' lack of vision; largely maintained by a small group of raving lunatic fans who fail to understand that most everyone else just really isn't going to get into this thing because while some might find it amusing, most aren't going to find it life-changing; got a "big screen" comeback that failed to make it the megastar only its raving fans thought it could be at that point.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;500556Firefly really IS like Traveller!

I enjoyed Firefly a hell of a lot more when it was Alien Resurrection.  Ron Perlman makes a much better Jayne than Adam Baldwin.

Of course, a ham sandwich would make a better Jayne than Baldwin.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;496721Same for me with DC Heroes. I was revved up about it after reading a review in Dragon, but the one time we tried it, for us it ended up with most of the session being point-spending, then too many tables in actual play.
I suppose things might have been different if they hadn't sold out of 2nd ed (which supposedly had this "action wheel" instead of tables) and made people play pregenerated heroes :(

WTF are you talkin' about?  2nd edition didn't make anyone play pre-gen characters and the wheel was for losers who couldn't read a chart.  I still have my 2nd edition box set, its great.

QuoteS'mon:
He must be a horrible person.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;499712He is, in every way imaginable.

RPGPundit

So I guess I should be happy he never got around to writing the new edition of The Whispering Vault he was talking about for a while back when.

I was talking about the d20 version.

From the insulting way he acted on forums both prior to release and then trying to defend that steaming pile of shit to the fact that I don't even think he's ever even read more than a few words on the cover of the older ones, his design decisions were implemented piss poorly, the tone in the book comes across as a half-wit who's convinced he's smarter than everyone else after reading half a wikipedia page on the wrong subject and misunderstanding half the words, the apocalypse was a lecture, nanotech was poorly done, and finally...

He's personally an asshole.

It's the perfect storm.

And I hope he had to eat those unsold GW books to survive.

Quote from: RPGPundit;500556Firefly really IS like Traveller! A lot of potential, less-than-perfect execution; fucked up as much by outside forces as by its own creators' lack of vision; largely maintained by a small group of raving lunatic fans who fail to understand that most everyone else just really isn't going to get into this thing because while some might find it amusing, most aren't going to find it life-changing; got a "big screen" comeback that failed to make it the megastar only its raving fans thought it could be at that point.

RPGPundit

'lack of vision'?

it's good to be controversial!

Quote from: T-Willard;500821I was talking about the d20 version.

From the insulting way he acted on forums both prior to release and then trying to defend that steaming pile of shit to the fact that I don't even think he's ever even read more than a few words on the cover of the older ones, his design decisions were implemented piss poorly, the tone in the book comes across as a half-wit who's convinced he's smarter than everyone else after reading half a wikipedia page on the wrong subject and misunderstanding half the words, the apocalypse was a lecture, nanotech was poorly done, and finally...

He's personally an asshole.

It's the perfect storm.

And I hope he had to eat those unsold GW books to survive.

Well, he used to whine often enough on his blog and rpgnet about all his various health and personal problems, so I guess there is some sense of cosmic justice there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;501158'lack of vision'?

it's good to be controversial!

By Whedon's own admission, he was just taking Every Standard Western Plot and rehashing them for his universe.

Which itself is just Outlaw Star with a Western reskin.

Had Whedon had actual "vision", he could have done something interesting with the show.  Instead of trying to dodge the fact that he's really writing about ex-Confederate soldiers in the Reconstruction-era South, he could have embraced that, shown us the more unsavory sides of the characters, and made us like them anyway.

He could have toned down the Western angle and done more with the conflict between the Alliance and the outer worlds.

Hell, he could have used what little clout he has to get some decent actors, instead of C-list sitcom rejects.

Quote from: T-Willard;500821And I hope he had to eat those unsold GW books to survive.

I'll show you what Gamma World should  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwzNW1Mn5EM)be.

Quote from: daniel_ream;501163By Whedon's own admission, he was just taking Every Standard Western Plot and rehashing them for his universe.

Which itself is just Outlaw Star with a Western reskin.

Had Whedon had actual "vision", he could have done something interesting with the show.  Instead of trying to dodge the fact that he's really writing about ex-Confederate soldiers in the Reconstruction-era South, he could have embraced that, shown us the more unsavory sides of the characters, and made us like them anyway.

He could have toned down the Western angle and done more with the conflict between the Alliance and the outer worlds.

Hell, he could have used what little clout he has to get some decent actors, instead of C-list sitcom rejects.

Maybe, maybe not. Seems a little harsh to me. I enjoyed Firefly and Serenity. They are fun and well written (uh oh). I have no issues with the cast either. Seems rather rough to criticise a show that didn't even get a chance to develop. Who knows where it could have gone had it least been aired by a network that cared enough to let it have a chance.

Though the chinese language probably didn't help

Quote from: daniel_ream;501163By Whedon's own admission, he was just taking Every Standard Western Plot and rehashing them for his universe.

Which itself is just Outlaw Star with a Western reskin.

Had Whedon had actual "vision", he could have done something interesting with the show.  Instead of trying to dodge the fact that he's really writing about ex-Confederate soldiers in the Reconstruction-era South, he could have embraced that, shown us the more unsavory sides of the characters, and made us like them anyway.

He could have toned down the Western angle and done more with the conflict between the Alliance and the outer worlds.

Hell, he could have used what little clout he has to get some decent actors, instead of C-list sitcom rejects.

Whatever flaws Firefly might have had, it introduced the world to Christina Hendricks, which makes it all worthwhile right there.

But Dollhouse was definitely Whedon's masterpiece.

Quote from: T-Willard;500821From the insulting way he acted on forums both prior to release and then trying to defend that steaming pile of shit to the fact that I don't even think he's ever even read more than a few words on the cover of the older ones, his design decisions were implemented piss poorly, the tone in the book comes across as a half-wit who's convinced he's smarter than everyone else after reading half a wikipedia page on the wrong subject and misunderstanding half the words

I never cared about GM (d20 or else), but I must admit that the above paragraph made me interested in reading this book :D

Quote from: daniel_ream;501163By Whedon's own admission, he was just taking Every Standard Western Plot and rehashing them for his universe.

Which itself is just Outlaw Star with a Western reskin.

Had Whedon had actual "vision", he could have done something interesting with the show.  Instead of trying to dodge the fact that he's really writing about ex-Confederate soldiers in the Reconstruction-era South, he could have embraced that, shown us the more unsavory sides of the characters, and made us like them anyway.

He could have toned down the Western angle and done more with the conflict between the Alliance and the outer worlds.

Hell, he could have used what little clout he has to get some decent actors, instead of C-list sitcom rejects.

Can't deny any of this. Then again, compared to a lot of crap that has come out lately calling itself Science Fiction, I think it stood up pretty well. I enjoyed it.

And yes, it is the core of Traveller.

Pundit just is unimpressed because after a steady diet of Gamma World, he believes that ALL science fiction RPGs must be Gonzo. :)

One boardgame I encountered over the past year was SMALLWORLD.  



HORRENDOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;501216Who knows where it could have gone had it least been aired by a network that cared enough to let it have a chance.

It might have got its whole season, then it would have been cancelled anyway.

1) Firefly was a Western.  Those don't sell.  Deadwood is the exception that proves the rule (and it's on HBO to boot, and got only three seasons).

2) It's genre mashup, which really, really doesn't sell.

Even if I knew nothing else than that about Firefly (like the uninspired writing, weak commitment to the allegory, mediocre acting, etc., etc.) I could have told you it wasn't going to get more than a season.

Don't get me wrong; I liked Firefly for what it was, but what it was was cable quality SF on broadcast TV.  It was never going to be successful for that market.

Quote from: daniel_ream;501241Even if I knew nothing else than that about Firefly (like the uninspired writing, weak commitment to the allegory, mediocre acting, etc., etc.) I could have told you it wasn't going to get more than a season.

Don't feed the opinion troll, guys.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;501245Don't feed the opinion troll, guys.

Not worth it, I agree.

I watched the aired pilot (really an episode from somewhere mid-series) and wasn't too impressed. Later I went back and watched the real first episode, plus one or two more, skipped ahead to the alleged "really good" episode ("Our Mrs. Reynolds"), and gave up.

I don't know if it could have done better commercially if it had been handled better, but I agree with Daniel, pretty much, in terms of taste. The western-inspired background wasn't necessarily a handicap (Star Trek was pitched as "'Wagon Train' in Space"), but the overtness of it, the geek-mashup genre-quoting, made it pretty hard to bear along with the plotting, characterization, scripting, and directing. (I won't blame the actors--you just have to compare Wendy Malik in "Dream On" to "Just Shoot Me!" to see what a good actor can and can't overcome.)

When did therpgsite turn into the-board-that-cried-troll-in-EVERY-FUCKING-thread?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;501245Don't feed the opinion troll, guys.

Okay, remove the parenthetical; my point still stands.  Firefly as a concept wasn't viable for network television.

For a cable channel like HBO or SyFy, or now apparently Netflix, it might have had a shot.  It might have even made it to a second season.

Quote from: daniel_ream;501288Okay, remove the parenthetical; my point still stands.  Firefly as a concept wasn't viable for network television.

For a cable channel like HBO or SyFy, or now apparently Netflix, it might have had a shot.  It might have even made it to a second season.

It was just too good for network television.

Remember, FOX also raped Space: Above and Beyond many years before.

EDIT: Also, the more I think of it, the more Outlaw Star is actually an extremely hopeful depiction of a d20 Future game.

Quote from: jeff37923;501289It was just too good for network television. Remember, FOX also raped Space: Above and Beyond many years before.

For network television, "good" is irrelevant.  What matters is ratings, and Firefly never had them, nor was it ever going to given its High Concept premise.

A lot of fans don't watch anything but SF and genre shows, too, which are rather famous for being in a quality ghetto.  Firefly is certainly better than, say, Space Precinct (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108938/); it's not better than I, Claudius, or The Fugitive, or Twin Peaks.

Quote from: daniel_ream;501310For network television, "good" is irrelevant.  What matters is ratings, and Firefly never had them, nor was it ever going to given its High Concept premise.

A lot of fans don't watch anything but SF and genre shows, too, which are rather famous for being in a quality ghetto.  Firefly is certainly better than, say, Space Precinct (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108938/); it's not better than I, Claudius, or The Fugitive, or Twin Peaks.

As the saying goes (and pun intended), "Truth in Television".

For this reason, I no longer want to see genre television done by networks too big to care about doing it right.  I'd rather that nothing be done for years at a time than continue the cavalcade of crap.  It doesn't help that many genre shows (including Firefly) are really some other genre in SF/F drag.

Quote from: daniel_ream;501310For network television, "good" is irrelevant.  What matters is ratings, and Firefly never had them, nor was it ever going to given its High Concept premise.

A lot of fans don't watch anything but SF and genre shows, too, which are rather famous for being in a quality ghetto.  Firefly is certainly better than, say, Space Precinct (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108938/); it's not better than I, Claudius, or The Fugitive, or Twin Peaks.

Not better than I, Claudius or The Fugitive is something I can agree with. Twin Peaks was not better than Firefly/Serenity, however - David Lynch is not the genius people think he is.

I thought Firefly was the best sci fi sense Battlestar.

I never cared about the sci-fi part of Serenity. I wanted to watch the riverboat show it really was. It was frustrating.

I enjoyed some episodes of Firefly, and even a couple of Buffy, but generally, Whedon is a hack.

Quote from: jeff37923;501289Remember, FOX also raped Space: Above and Beyond many years before.

Space: Above and Beyond was one of the best shows of the 90's, but it was ahead of its time in terms of audience expectations. If it had been released in the post-Sopranos era by HBO or FX or Showtime, I think we'd be debating the merits of season 5 vs. 6, instead of pondering what a second season would have been like.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;501334Space: Above and Beyond was one of the best shows of the 90's, but it was ahead of its time in terms of audience expectations. If it had been released in the post-Sopranos era by HBO or FX or Showtime, I think we'd be debating the merits of season 5 vs. 6, instead of pondering what a second season would have been like.

Oh hells yes, I remember this show and it was fucking awesome.

Not sure if it would measure up to today's expectations, it seemed a bit aimed at history buffs and armchair generals with its frequent referencing historical battles, but I'd say, yes, the world is ready for a decent MilSF TV series which focused equal parts in character development and gritty space warfare.

If any show from the ninties needs a remake Space above and beyond fits the bill perfectly, it's just a pitty nobody has considered it.

Quote from: stu2000;501333I enjoyed some episodes of Firefly, and even a couple of Buffy, but generally, Whedon is a hack.

In what way?

Quote from: The Butcher;501340Oh hells yes, I remember this show and it was fucking awesome.

Not sure if it would measure up to today's expectations, it seemed a bit aimed at history buffs and armchair generals with its frequent referencing historical battles, but I'd say, yes, the world is ready for a decent MilSF TV series which focused equal parts in character development and gritty space warfare.

Considering recent history in America, I think that a MilSF TV show that was a parable of our own wars would be a hit.

It'd fit Starz or AMC perfectly aswell which is why its a mystery there's nothing like it at the moment.

Quote from: TristramEvans;501342In what way?

I think his writing is weakened by high concept and thin characterization. His dialog is normally pretty cheap, although I'll acknowledge some nice pieces. His simultaneously pining after and deeply fearing women is an acceptable idea to explore sometimes, but it's been beaten to death. It's distracting.

I like the music he writes for his shows. The Buffy musical, though a gimmick, was nicely done. He definitely has (had?) a pretty good feel for the geek world and was able to incorporate those tropes and expectations into his work. However--since I like the icing on his shows so much, it accetuates how stale the cake is.

Just for contrast, my favorite TV hack is Donald Bellisario. He's the one who reconfigured Shane for my favorite Battlestar Galactica episode. He recycled the material for Tales of the Gold Monkey and Airwolf, as well. Probably Magnum, too, but I can't place the episode. Like Whedon, he recycles a consistent group of types for his main characters and beats the same tricks to death. I don't necessarily think he's a better writer than Whedon--none of these TV cats are Thomas Pynchon. But I find his work a little more entertaining than Whedon's.

Entirely possible it's an age thing. I was high school when Bellisario's early shows came on, and I ate those up. I like NCIS now. His work shows growth. I wasn't really aware of Whedon until much later. I think I was 30 or so when the Buffy series came on. It didn't immediately appeal, but I probably would've gone nuts for it in high school. Then it would've formed the basis of my expectations the way Ba Ba Blacksheep or Battlestar Galactica formed that basis earlier.

I never criticize folks for liking what they like--I just b=never have been part of the Whedon fan club.

I'm mildly entertained by the fact that I have the DVD box sets of Tales of the Gold Monkey and Space: Above and Beyond sitting on the shelf next to me right now.

If I had to vote for a 90's SF TV show to be remade, I'd vote for Alien Nation.  Take out the hamfisted fantasy racism and the cartoonish characterization and make a show about the clash of cultures, with - for once - a well-thought-out detailed alien culture.

I am not a Whedon fan. Buffy bores me to tears. I don't even know what doll house is about. But I love Firefly. I'm watching the episodes and the movie over and over again with my wife and it's like... home, now, in a way. I just love it.

Take my love, take my land, take me where I cannot stand. I don’t care, I’m still free.

You can't take the sky from meeeee!



Though The Ballade of Hero of Canton still beats all.

Quote from: Benoist;501404I don't even know what doll house is about.

Dollhouse is the abyss staring back in to you.  Dollhouse is the last imperceptible sound of the last quarks in the universe decaying.  Dollhouse is a 2AM wrong number phone-call from NORAD trying to reach the President to inform him that 2400 Russian warheads are being tracked inbound to target. Dollhouse is what J-Horror films try to imply.  Dollhouse is the vision of Gehenna laid over the world for a fraction of a second while your eyes are shut when you blink.  Dollhouse is finding out H.P. Lovecraft was actually writing real articles couched in pulp stories, and it isn't cool or hip or funny because Elder Things did create you, and giant Polyps are loose.  Dollhouse is The Stand that ends on page 30 with a 100% infection rate.  Dollhouse is finding out that your parents are over the Moral Panic of D&D in the 80s because they've come out as LaVeyan Satanists - and the Devil is real.  Dollhouse is finding out that there is no Santa Claus, but there is Krampus and he's coming after your kids.  Dollhouse is a Joss Whedon show about Magic Girlsrobot whores that heclients can turn on and off at will and Whedonthe company that makes them can erase their memories because they laughed at him in highschoolfor discretion's sake.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;501422Dollhouse is the abyss staring back in to you.  Dollhouse is the last imperceptible sound of the last quarks in the universe decaying.  Dollhouse is a 2AM wrong number phone-call from NORAD trying to reach the President to inform him that 2400 Russian warheads are being tracked inbound to target. Dollhouse is what J-Horror films try to imply.  Dollhouse is the vision of Gehenna laid over the world for a fraction of a second while your eyes are shut when you blink.  Dollhouse is finding out H.P. Lovecraft was actually writing real articles couched in pulp stories, and it isn't cool or hip or funny because Elder Things did create you, and giant Polyps are loose.  Dollhouse is The Stand that ends on page 30 with a 100% infection rate.  Dollhouse is finding out that your parents are over the Moral Panic of D&D in the 80s because they've come out as LaVeyan Satanists - and the Devil is real.  Dollhouse is finding out that there is no Santa Claus, but there is Krampus and he's coming after your kids.  Dollhouse is a Joss Whedon show about Magic Girlsrobot whores that heclients can turn on and off at will and Whedonthe company that makes them can erase their memories because they laughed at him in highschoolfor discretion's sake.

You could've just said it sucks, you know.

Dollhouse is that show where the main character gets a new memory/personality every episode, right?

Quote from: Rincewind1;501423You could've just said it sucks, you know.

I wanted to be clear on the matter.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;501425I wanted to be clear on the matter.

Well, I liked the metaphor. Though it actually suggested for me that it may be good - there was a load of emotional "it's going to rape your mind", and I usually consider movies that are so grim that they do that, to be good.

Never seen Dollhouse. Premise just seemed too creepy for me.

Quote from: Rincewind1;501433Well, I liked the metaphor. Though it actually suggested for me that it may be good - there was a load of emotional "it's going to rape your mind", and I usually consider movies that are so grim that they do that, to be good.

It's not that it's "going to rape your mind".  It's that it sort of made me lose faith in everything for the few minutes I was watching it.  I was literally watching a manchild with a TV show whose minute-to-minute budget was more than my wife and I have to get by on on a monthly basis, and he was using that TV show to get back at Mean Girls.  Fuck Joss Whedon, and fuck people who hold up Joss Whedon as some kind of radical feminist champion because he has STRONG WYMYN CHARACTERS.  He doesn't; he has creepy-assed issues with women - no, check that, he has really horrible creepy-assed issues with women and watching him trot them out show to show to put on display, then nod and wink at the camera and grin through that chinstrap nonbeard and pantomime a freethrow like he just nailed a 3-pointer for all of us to see makes me want to vomit.

Every shitty shitty movie he's made he's run off and hidden behind THE STUDIO DIDN'T UNDERSTAND MY VISION BAAAAAAAAAAW! and I'm sick and goddamn tired of it because part of being a grownup is at least taking responsibility for your actions every once in a while.  

Still, I think the most resounding critique of his oeuvre came from his legion of fans that he imagines he has: Serenity didn't force Fox to renew Firefly for even a partial season, it didn't jump up and wallop the summer box office for 2005, hell it didn't even make it's own incredibly modest budget back.

Community got three seasons (and has better sci-fi writing).  Jericho got a short 2nd season.  Fans of Chuck helped keep it on a 4th and 5th season despite abysmal ratings.  Whedon lives inside a Reality Distortion Field that makes the one Steve Jobs lived in and the one Kevin Smith lives in look like soap bubbles by comparison, and when you add on his Creepy Issues with Women it's just all the more pathetic.

Quote from: Rincewind1;501423You could've just said it sucks, you know.

Dollhouse is that show where the main character gets a new memory/personality every episode, right?

It starts out like that, yes. I avoided teh show when it was first on because the premise seemed a bit like an excuse for some sort of ultimate prostitute fantasy. I thought that Whedon had entered his Frank Herbert "dirty old man" phase.But I watched it at the behest of a GF last year, and that show is perhaps the biggest mindf*ck ever made for western audiences after The Prisoner. It seriously plays with and destroys all one's expectations and by the time you're through the first season you're watching an entirely different show, and that happens repeatedly until the final story arc. It's Whedon's masterpiece. A deconstruction of gender roles, social constructs, identity and finally, individuality, that's worthy of Phillip K. Dick.

So, to answer your question, it's not actually about a character whose personality is rewritten, it's about the birth and childhood of a personality that is constructed from a number of different personalities and comes to reject the person who originally, well, inhabited the brain as it were. And then the zombie apocalypse happens.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;501440Still, I think the most resounding critique of his oeuvre came from his legion of fans that he imagines he has: Serenity didn't force Fox to renew Firefly for even a partial season, it didn't jump up and wallop the summer box office for 2005, hell it didn't even make it's own incredibly modest budget back.

Some people like Firefly some don't, I get that. I also get that the overenthusiastic Firefly fans might have caused something of a backlash against the show among felllow nerds. But judging the quality of a show, or any creative endeavor, simply by it commercial success is madness unless you really argue the virtues of the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers or boy bands in general.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;501422Dollhouse is the abyss staring back in to you.  Dollhouse is the last imperceptible sound of the last quarks in the universe decaying.  Dollhouse is a 2AM wrong number phone-call from NORAD trying to reach the President to inform him that 2400 Russian warheads are being tracked inbound to target. Dollhouse is what J-Horror films try to imply.  Dollhouse is the vision of Gehenna laid over the world for a fraction of a second while your eyes are shut when you blink.  Dollhouse is finding out H.P. Lovecraft was actually writing real articles couched in pulp stories, and it isn't cool or hip or funny because Elder Things did create you, and giant Polyps are loose.  Dollhouse is The Stand that ends on page 30 with a 100% infection rate.  Dollhouse is finding out that your parents are over the Moral Panic of D&D in the 80s because they've come out as LaVeyan Satanists - and the Devil is real.  Dollhouse is finding out that there is no Santa Claus, but there is Krampus and he's coming after your kids.  Dollhouse is a Joss Whedon show about Magic Girlsrobot whores that heclients can turn on and off at will and Whedonthe company that makes them can erase their memories because they laughed at him in highschoolfor discretion's sake.

...Which sounds cool! :D Pity that it is terminally boring too...

Quote from: TristramEvans;501448It seriously plays with and destroys all one's expectations and by the time you're through the first season you're watching an entirely different show, and that happens repeatedly until the final story arc.

Which is one of the problems I have with Whedon's shows. My friends go fan-rabid over them; I check them out of curiosity; the show sucks hard; I confront my friends about it (since I only watch shows on DVD it always means lost money), and the answer invariably is "Of course you have to endure the first ELEVEN SEASONS, but then you will see how good it gets!!!"

Which brings me to my main doubt: how comes that shows like "Six Feet Under", "Battlestar Galactica", "The Sopranos", "The Big Bang Theory", "The Wire", and even (believe it or not) "Xena" manage to be good from Season 1, Episode 1, Scene 1?

I understand the "slow burning" story structure, where something starts out as banal and derivative, and actually uses these "flaws" to pull the rug even harder from under the viewer when the good stuff hits. I even admit that I love to start with banal situation when I write, so to better hide the plot stunts when they come.

But this works in a more compact form of storytelling, like a movie, a graphic novel or maybe a novel. A weekly show simply needs to grab you from the beginning and give you a reason to watch it week after week. It is the nature of the medium. If you cannot adapt to it (and there is nothing wrong with this) it is better devoting your creativity to other mediums.

Quote from: Reckall;501507Which is one of the problems I have with Whedon's shows. My friends go fan-rabid over them; I check them out of curiosity; the show sucks hard; I confront my friends about it (since I only watch shows on DVD it always means lost money), and the answer invariably is "Of course you have to endure the first ELEVEN SEASONS, but then you will see how good it gets!!!"

Which brings me to my main doubt: how comes that shows like "Six Feet Under", "Battlestar Galactica", "The Sopranos", "The Big Bang Theory", "The Wire", and even (believe it or not) "Xena" manage to be good from Season 1, Episode 1, Scene 1?

I understand the "slow burning" story structure, where something starts out as banal and derivative, and actually uses these "flaws" to pull the rug even harder from under the viewer when the good stuff hits. I even admit that I love to start with banal situation when I write, so to better hide the plot stunts when they come.

But this works in a more compact form of storytelling, like a movie, a graphic novel or maybe a novel. A weekly show simply needs to grab you from the beginning and give you a reason to watch it week after week. It is the nature of the medium. If you cannot adapt to it (and there is nothing wrong with this) it is better devoting your creativity to other mediums.

Not sure where you are coming from, Whedon's shows usually start very strong right away. Probably just a personal preference thing.

I do so miss Space Above and Beyond... and I agree, that show was way too advanced for its time.

Quote from: Reckall;501507Which is one of the problems I have with Whedon's shows. My friends go fan-rabid over them; I check them out of curiosity; the show sucks hard; I confront my friends about it (since I only watch shows on DVD it always means lost money), and the answer invariably is "Of course you have to endure the first ELEVEN SEASONS, but then you will see how good it gets!!!"

Well, that wasn't what I meant to imply. Obviously this is all a matter of taste, but the show starts strong enough, IMO, it's just that it seems at first to be this incredibly sexist, overtly sexualized, modern Charlie's Angels and then, well, it consistently pulls the rug out. I say that as a good thing, but I am, at best, a lukewarm Whedon fan. I liked the first three seasons of Buffy, I think it went straight downhill after that. I think sometimes Whedon is so obsessed with destroying tropes that, while sometimes it works great and means some of the few shows that contain genuine surprises - it also, in the long run I found, led consistently to anticlimax. I also found his Buffy/Angel cast to be a little too self-aware, to the point that it defused the drama and quickly turned badass characters into ineffectual running gags. And the writers seemed to make character choices based more on what would be "cool" rather than consistency, hence Willow suddenly becoming gay because...well, in the late 90s gay witches were "in". Nevermind that it threw out the ongoing plot with Xander. (Sometimes I think Whedon just has an issue with relationships in general).

I liked Firefly better than Buffy/Angel, and I think Dollhouse was a work of genius, but I also understand why someone would seriously dislike his stuff.



And my vote for a sci-fi show that deserves a modern remake - Max Headroom.

OTOH, I'd much rather just get some more Farscape, w/o a revamp.

Quote from: TristramEvans;501515And my vote for a sci-fi show that deserves a modern remake - Max Headroom.

That's a great suggestion, because the show had such untapped potential. It holds up surprisingly well for what was really kind of a slapdash attempt to exploit a gimmick. But I think it'd suffer from future creep, the way Shadowrun and Cyberpunk do. I'm not sure it would survive its own update.

Quote from: Soylent Green;497704I think the trouble with Fate is that people take the rules too seriously. Take any other game and there is a good chance the GM is ignoring a whole bunch of rules  and giving the whole thing his own spin because that's just the way it is. And you happen to run that odd session in which no one even touches the dice, that's cool too. But when it comes to Fate it's like you got to use all the rules all the time or your not doing it right.

Fate started working a lot better for me the moment I said to myself "Screw that" and simply used the rules as and when the felt right for me.

I think the worst advertisement for FATE has been people on forums "demonstrating" how you can perform simple actions with all the system elements, when I would just wing it in practice. My favourite example is killing someone with fire by tagging an Aspect to tag them with the "On Fire" Aspect, then dousing them in gasoline which has the "flammable" aspect, and so on. FATE is great but some people want the economy of spending Fate Poitns to be the entire game.

My worst experiences-in-practice have tended to have more to do with how the game was played than the contents of the book. Mutants & Masterminds, for example, as run by somebody who actually wanted to look up how heavy a 4-story building is to see if a hero can lift it, instead of just roughing it based on the handy benchmark chart. Physics-engine gaming blows.

Quote from: stu2000;501382I like the music he writes for his shows. The Buffy musical, though a gimmick, was nicely done.

Aside from that "Once More, With Feeling", one particular music scene I find hilarious is Giles suddenly bursting into song in "Restless", which certainly qualifies as one of the better "dream episodes" in any television show that I can think of.

Quote from: TristramEvans;501515And my vote for a sci-fi show that deserves a modern remake - Max Headroom.

Quote from: stu2000;501519That's a great suggestion, because the show had such untapped potential. It holds up surprisingly well for what was really kind of a slapdash attempt to exploit a gimmick. But I think it'd suffer from future creep, the way Shadowrun and Cyberpunk do. I'm not sure it would survive its own update.

I got the DVD collection of that when it came out and it holds up remarkably well. It is kinda spooky that way.

Max headroom is almost constantly rumoured to be gettign a remake so im guessing it'll turn up eventually probably as a syfy remake that stars the original actor in some way.

Quote from: Reckall;501507Which brings me to my main doubt: how comes that shows like "Six Feet Under", "Battlestar Galactica", "The Sopranos", "The Big Bang Theory", "The Wire", and even (believe it or not) "Xena" manage to be good from Season 1, Episode 1, Scene 1?

I agree on all of those (save maybe BSG but I hate that show because of a certain guy who I despise and who loves it :P), but BBT? It's shit that's a veiled "hey guys, remember the times we laughed at those people at school? Let's do so again!", especially compared to IT Crowd, which is decent enough to take swings at both the IT people and their customers ;).