# Worst RPG System You Ever Palyed?



## cheadberg (Jul 21, 2005)

This has probably been posted millions of times, but I never saw it. Anyway what Rpg system have you played in your years of gaming that you would have to say was the worst ever? I would have to say anything done by Palladium. That is the worst rule system I have ever played. A game where anything over a 5 on a d20 is a hit is insane. Not to mention other things. Did you know that back in the day Palladium tried to get the rights to Star Wars for the RPG? Thank god it didn't. That would have killed it right there. Rifts was a good idea but to bad Kevin thought of it and not Ed Greenwood.


----------



## fafhrd (Jul 21, 2005)

Bring on the Synnibar!


----------



## Psion (Jul 21, 2005)

I have a baaad feeling about this thread.


----------



## mcrow (Jul 21, 2005)

Imagine Roleplaying


has to be the worst i have ever played.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 21, 2005)

Dr. Who.

One person gets to play a powerful Time Lord.  Everyone else gets to play a wimpy sidekick.  There was a huge gulf in Time Lords and humans.  Think of a d20 game where one guy got to start at EL +10 and everyone else had to be EL +0.


----------



## Psion (Jul 21, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Dr. Who.
> 
> One person gets to play a powerful Time Lord.  Everyone else gets to play a wimpy sidekick.  There was a huge gulf in Time Lords and humans.  Think of a d20 game where one guy got to start at EL +10 and everyone else had to be EL +0.




Or like playing with a T-man or a Dragon alongside a vagabond in RIFTS?


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 21, 2005)

The FATAL LARP.  <shudder>  Was a lot harder on my girlfriend, though.

<Just kidding....you think I'd be out of jail yet if I had?>


----------



## Talmun (Jul 21, 2005)

Sin-zar (or however it's spelled)

Ok, I didn't actually play it, but I have the rule book, it's good for a laugh.  You can create a starting character that can level cities.

Worst I've played?  Um...probably Aberant d20, mostly because it totally changes the feel of the game and doesn't capture the spirit of the Storyteller version at all.  That and the storyteller version was far from perfect.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 21, 2005)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Bring on the Synnibar!



You admit to playing it?


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 21, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Or like playing with a T-man or a Dragon alongside a vagabond in RIFTS?






I never sat down and played RIFTS.  So, to be fair, I wouldn't know.  



(but yeah!)


----------



## mcrow (Jul 21, 2005)

Palladium is not all that bad. Another one that is reallly bad is Rolemaster, it's nickname "chartmaster" says it all.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jul 21, 2005)

Aftermath.

A ruleset so bizarre and poorly put together that it pretty much quashed my interest in what I considered my favortie genre (Post APocalypse) for _years_.

A different rulesystem for everything, an entire book of gun stats without the names or descritions of the guns included, Mutations so miniscule and weak as to be pointless. 

Just a huge, idiotic mess from beginning to end.


----------



## paulsometimes (Jul 21, 2005)

I'm gonna say Palladium as well, though I've only played Palladium, d20, and 2e.  I love a lot of Palladium's worlds.  Heck, the Robotech RPG was my first.  But the rules system is just horrible.  Too bad Mr. Siembieda is too proud to let anyone convert his games to d20.  I think that's because he knows his rules system would find a lot less play.


----------



## der_kluge (Jul 21, 2005)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> The FATAL LARP.  <shudder>  Was a lot harder on my girlfriend, though.





We have a winner!!


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 21, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Aftermath.




I *loved* Aftermath.  I reveled in its quirkiness.  We always played 'realistic' post-apocalypse, though.  No mutants for us.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jul 21, 2005)

Out of the games I've actually played the worst would ahve to be Rifts or WEG D6.  Rifts is too clunky, too unbalanced, too everything.  The idea of the setting is cool and the setting itself is very good in places, but in others it's just boring.  D6 system or "Buckets o' Dice" wasn't too terrible at lower power levels, but when you have to start rolling 6-10 d6's minimum, it just gets out of hand fast.

Rolemaster ranks right up there as well.

I've seen Synnibar and FATAL as well as a few others, but I never played them.  Those looked FAR worse that anything else.

Kane


----------



## Pramas (Jul 21, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Aftermath.




Seconded. How many hit locations on the human body does one need exactly?


----------



## pogre (Jul 21, 2005)

_Aftermath _ here too.


----------



## Zappo (Jul 21, 2005)

I was going to mention an obscure home-grown RPG I played once at a con, but if mr. Rodrigo has actually played a FATAL LARP, I'll retire from the competition since I don't think that can be beaten.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 21, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Aftermath.




I *loved* Aftermath.  I reveled in its quirkiness.  We always played 'realistic' post-apocalypse, though.  No mutants for us.


----------



## mcrow (Jul 21, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Out of the games I've actually played the worst would ahve to be Rifts or WEG D6. Rifts is too clunky, too unbalanced, too everything. The idea of the setting is cool and the setting itself is very good in places, but in others it's just boring. D6 system or "Buckets o' Dice" wasn't too terrible at lower power levels, but when you have to start rolling 6-10 d6's minimum, it just gets out of hand fast.
> 
> Rolemaster ranks right up there as well.
> 
> ...




I can understand why people don't like the palladium system, it's not the easiest system to grok and even when you do it *can* be clunky. I happen to like it. I have never heard anyone list WEG D6 on their worst systems before.  Judging by your avatar maybe you played the WEG Star Wars. I'm not sure if there is any difference between the current version of D6 and SW d6 since I have never played or seen the SW version. I don't think d6 is all that great of a system but it playable and works OK.


----------



## Rasyr (Jul 21, 2005)

Hmm... 

I would say that it is a toss up between three different game.

Heroes Unlimited (IIRC, this was a Palladium game - but it has been years and years since we tried it).

AD&D (1e) - I hate limitations on my characters. I can only be a Monk if I randomly roll really high stats? Sheesh! (Never played 2e, so cannot comment on it). Actual play was not too bad, IMO, so long as you were not playing a magic user.

WEG Star Wars - but not so much as the game itself but because you HAD to play one of the pregenerated template or else you just sucked at every. Player created templates always seemed to be much weaker than the ones provided by the game. That made it much less enjoyable to me.

In short, I just happen to like games that give me the freedom to design the character that I want, rather than having to follow predefined templates.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 21, 2005)

Played - Well I'd give the nod to...Heroes Unlimited 1e

DM'ed - Flame away, but it was 3.0e.  I know there are probably worse systems out there to DM but I found this one the least fun of any game I DM'ed.  Of course I haven't DM'ed every system by a long shot.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jul 21, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Seconded. How many hit locations on the human body does one need exactly?




Apparently--according to aftermath--about 40, which was odd considering that hit locations in Aftermath _made no difference whatsoever to the damage inflicted_.

It did allow you to purchase armore "per location" which let you create your own pieces  (A jacket covered say locations 2,7,11,14-17, 21, and 31), but seeing as the different locations meant nothing to damage, it statistically made about as much sense to wear a steel helmet as it did to wear a steel Knee Guard. 

Both stopped the same damage the same amount of time.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 21, 2005)

I made a character for (the original) _Bunnies and Burrows_, but never got to play him.

The worst game I ever played was _Fantasy HERO_ under a thoroughly awful GM, but that wasn't the game system's fault.

The worst system I can remember playing was somebody's homebrew game based on d30. (d30 are really bad dice to use in practice ... they never stop rolling!) It didn't help that he was no great shakes as a GM either.

-The Gneech


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 21, 2005)

Feng Shui.

Awful.

So bad that my group threatens each other with it when we get out of line.    

However, in fairness, the GM later told us that he didn't think he ran it 100% correctly.

That was the last non-D&D game I tried.


----------



## mcrow (Jul 21, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Hmm...
> 
> I would say that it is a toss up between three different game.
> 
> ...




I'm a palladium fan and even I don't like Heros Unlimited. It was mostly because generating a character seemed like it took us a full days work before we could play.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jul 21, 2005)

I played WEG Star Wars for a while.  I hated it.  I hated rolling up all those dice.  I hated the way Jedi were handled.  I hated the templates that never seemed to be on par with anything any players made that wasn't outright munchkin.  It's the one campaign of Star Wars I've played in which I can say that I didn't have much fun at all.

Those two are just out of the systems I've actually played.  Like I said, I've seen worse, but not having actually played them I can't really list them.  Rifts and D6 were the worst two systems I've ran (though I actually had some fun with Rifts) out of the 10 - 12 systems I've played/ran.

Kane


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 21, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Feng Shui.
> 
> Awful.
> 
> ...




You know Dave, I gotta say that playing Feng Shui is alot like making love.  If you aren't having a good time, you're doing it wrong. 

_Edit - Forgot the smiley_


----------



## Rasyr (Jul 21, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Rolemaster ranks right up there as well.



Can I ask why you say this? 

Considering that RM and D&D3.5/d20 use almost identical mechanics for resolution, I find this to be an odd comment to say the least.

Is it because of the tables? Tables do not make a bad game (even though they may not be for everybody).

mcrow - the next question is for you as well.

Have you actually played RM before?


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jul 21, 2005)

I'm either about to really date myself or tick a bunch of people off...

ICE's _Rolemaster,_ home of the infamous _Law _series of rules - _Spelllaw, Clawlaw_, etc.  
Yeah, I just *LOVED *playing with a slide rule and 900 pages of charts and graphs. 
(Howcome we don't have that 'rolleyes" smilie yet!!)  We actually never _played,_ it took us three *days* to make up characters.  Luckily I bought it cheap at a yardsale - I soon figured out why.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 21, 2005)

Poor Role Master always gets so much hate...

Not a perfect system, but I really enjoyed my RM games.


----------



## Rasyr (Jul 21, 2005)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> I'm either about to really date myself or tick a bunch of people off...
> 
> ICE's _Rolemaster,_ home of the infamous _Law _series of rules - _Spelllaw, Clawlaw_, etc.
> Yeah, I just *LOVED *playing with a slide rule and 900 pages of charts and graphs.
> (Howcome we don't have that 'rolleyes" smilie yet!!)  We actually never _played,_ it took us three *days* to make up characters.  Luckily I bought it cheap at a yardsale - I soon figured out why.



slide rule??? ROFLMAO... All it required is simple addition/subtraction..

Note that yes, chargen can take a long, long time, but that was part of the fun, that you got to make the character exactly how you wanted it.

Personally, I tend to think that D&D 3.5/d20 is actually more complicated than RM ever was...


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 21, 2005)

Played?  Absolutely, with 100% certainty I'll say *Powers & Perils* from Avalon Hill.  The experience system was horrible.  You had to keep track of exactly how many points of damage to which creatures you inflicted to determine your experience for a combat. Which weapon you attacked with was important, too, IIRC. There were many other clunky things in the game.

I played in a campaign that must not have lasted long.  I'm rure it lasted a least a couple of sessions, but we just couldn't stand the system.

Read?  Spawn of Fashan.  Almost unplayable as written.  A fun read, though


----------



## Crothian (Jul 21, 2005)

Space Opera

Okay, I liked it but my freinds who frankly didn't understad calculus and were not that profiecient with a graphic caculat and took art classees instead of the hard sciences were confused.  "Space opera, the game written by math geeks for math geeks" is what I always called it.  

Feng Shui is a great system, you must have been playing it  wriong.  But to speak of games that I used to hate becasue of DM incompitance is Exalted.  I hated this game for years becasue unbeknowst to me the guy running it was cluless.  Same for Abberant, I like both games now though.  Amazing how a crappy DM can ruin a gamesystem for you.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 21, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Space Opera




Space Opera joins Chivalry & Sorcery as the only games where I spent an entire gaming session creating a character, only to never play the game because we were so burnt out on character generation that we didn't want to try the game.

Traveller had one character generation problem (character's dying during character generation), but there were ways around that.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jul 21, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> slide rule??? ROFLMAO... All it required is simple addition/subtraction..



 



			
				Rasyr said:
			
		

> Note that yes, chargen can take a long, long time, but that was part of the fun, that you got to make the character exactly how you wanted it.
> 
> Personally, I tend to think that D&D 3.5/d20 is actually more complicated than RM ever was...



No offense, no really, but you can't be serious...  And those charts were ANYTHING but fun...


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jul 21, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Can I ask why you say this?
> 
> Considering that RM and D&D3.5/d20 use almost identical mechanics for resolution, I find this to be an odd comment to say the least.
> 
> ...



 Yeah, I've played RM many times.  It would be silly for me to even bring it up if I haven't.  The amount of charts and the time to create characters was my big turn offs to the game.  For what it's worth, I can create a character in 3.5E in 10 minutes easy, most times without looking in the book.  I never got to that point with RM.  Plus in 3.5 I don't have to spend time looking up charts.  Most of the time, the only thing I need to look up is a spell.  For me, saying RM is less complex than 3.5 is laughable.  I don't doubt that RM is better for you, but for me it wasn't overly fun.  That's just a difference in tastes.  This just goes to show that one person's worst (of which RM wasn't mine, just close) can be another's favorite.


----------



## adwyn (Jul 21, 2005)

I've played all of the mentioned games except Synnibar and have to say that as klunky as they were they were playable, albeit often with a bit of guessing at what the authors intended. 

The worst in my experience was Man, Myth, and Magic. Nice production values but the rules were written by a non gamer after only a few sample games. Nearly a hundred skills masquerading as abilities that were all randomly rolled and whacky class abilities that made no sense. Still it had nice maps and the encounter charts included a GM who had fallen into his game.


----------



## Rasyr (Jul 21, 2005)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> No offense, no really, but you can't be serious...  And those charts were ANYTHING but fun...



Actually, I can be serious.   
To me, charts and tables are not intimidating, nor confusing. And they were fun - FOR ME. That is the stipulation here - for me. If you didn't like them personally, that is fine.

As for d20 being more complicated than RM - I do, personally, feel that that IS the case right now. But note, I am talking about in play, not about chargen (both are about even in that department for complexity in my opinion).


Oh, just noticed that you are new here. In case you did not realize it, I do have a VERY strong bias for RM, and an even bigger one for a game called HARP (both published by Iron Crown Enterprises.... the company I work for )


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 21, 2005)

cheadberg said:
			
		

> This has probably been posted millions of times, but I never saw it. Anyway what Rpg system have you played in your years of gaming that you would have to say was the worst ever? I would have to say anything done by Palladium.




I was going to originally say, I don't think I have played anything really bad, and I don't think I have, but my bottom of the barrel experiences:

Playing solo one edition of Gama World (I wish I knew the edition, because their has been such variation)...it took a few minutes to realise, this thing sucked (or that was my impression at the time)...

Playing Vampire at a con.  Classic case of the Storyteller letting us do nothing except telling us how vampires are so cool, and yet don't want to do anything we wanted our charecters to do. (I should note this didn't last long, and is very much a case of YMMV).

At the same con, a modern game, maybe by Charles Ryan (who I think I saw??). Mediocre at best, but again, it could have been the session.

And yes, at the same con, a special intro session to Col Pladoh's game of the time (the one before his current one...Dangerous Journeys, Mythic Journeys?).  A boring and contrived scenario that gave us no feel for the game itself (which apparently is complicated, so would have been hard to get into in a one shot). This is unfair of me on one level, but on another level, this was the "official" introduction.

There was a Diablo D&Desque RPG put out by Wizards...just played that for one session. Not terrible, but there was no desire to continue. 

And finally I reach Palladium Fantasy Role Playing. Which I played a few times. Not that bad, but the worst that I actually participated in a campaign for. And, and this is the deeper criticism: close to pointless, given that their is another, far more popular, fantasy RGP that preceeded it.


----------



## fusangite (Jul 21, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Aftermath.
> 
> A ruleset so bizarre and poorly put together that it pretty much quashed my interest in what I considered my favortie genre (Post APocalypse) for _years_.
> 
> ...



Still planning to run Encounter Critical at GenCon? I'm still dying to play one of the Ape Sultans.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 21, 2005)

<hijack>Actually, has anybody played the CODA _Lord of the Rings_ game? Is it any good? My impression from reading it was that it boiled down to the d20 system with the serial numbers filed off and 2d6 put in.</hijack>

   -The Gneech


----------



## Khairn (Jul 21, 2005)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> No offense, no really, but you can't be serious...  And those charts were ANYTHING but fun...




IMO the charts in RM are easy, and the system is actually quite simple, once you get beyond the fear of addition and subtraction.  But no system can make everyone happy.

For me the worst system was Synnibar by FAR.  Nothing even comes close.

Aftermath, Space Opera, C&S, OD&D were clunky and quirky, but at least they worked to a degree (especially C&S) but Synnibar .... <shudder>  

Never again.


----------



## Rasyr (Jul 21, 2005)

Synnibarr isn't that bad once you get used to it.


----------



## Talmun (Jul 21, 2005)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> <hijack>Actually, has anybody played the CODA _Lord of the Rings_ game? Is it any good? My impression from reading it was that it boiled down to the d20 system with the serial numbers filed off and 2d6 put in.</hijack>
> 
> -The Gneech




Essentially yes.  I ran it at the last Gen-con before Indy, a few times at the first one in Indy and also ran a storyline for my regular group.

It's not too bad, really.  The rulebook layout is horrible, and it's very rules light, so it requires a rather heavy-handed GM and a trusting group of players.
The one thing I did like was actions per round.  You get two.  You can do whatever you want for those two actions, run twice, attack twice, one of each, whatever.  You can also take extra actions, but at a -2 cumulative penalty for each additional action, which is enough that taking more than about 4 extra actions is pointless.

All in all, it's far from the worst RPG I've played, I liked it, but great it aint.


----------



## mcrow (Jul 21, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Can I ask why you say this?
> 
> Considering that RM and D&D3.5/d20 use almost identical mechanics for resolution, I find this to be an odd comment to say the least.
> 
> ...




yes, I did play it once about maybe 5 years ago. There were way to many charts and as you said character creation took to long. Maybe if I played more it wouldn't so bad , but enjoy it I did not. I'm not even sure what edition we were playing (though the book the GM was using was well warn) either because I don't own the book so if there was a newer edition I wouldn't know what improvements were made there. I'm not going to knock anyone for liking RM, if you like it and have fun with it good. I like palladium noone else hear seems like it, but I don't care.  OTOH I do like HARP. It took the good elements from RM simplified them. I haven't had a chance yet to play HARP  but I look forward to giving it a go.


----------



## The_Universe (Jul 21, 2005)

Not a fan of D&D 2E. At all. In fact, I *loathe* it. So arbitrary! So very, very arbitrary. I also don't like GURPs. It's got some great sourcebooks as long as you ignore the rules - we tried to play a session once long ago - also inconsistant, also arbitrary. 

Some consistency is key! Key!


----------



## billd91 (Jul 21, 2005)

On my personal worst list, I would have to put Recon and Marvel Super Heroes.

In Recon, stats were generated on d100. Skill rolls and perceptions were all on d100 as well. So a character who got lucky on his initial generation dice could do no wrong, characters who didn't do so well, sucked the tailpipe... badly. There was virtually no bell curve that I can remember. Characters could be all over the map.

I never really like MSH's task resolution system nor damage. Once you actually hit something, there was no random element at all. Also, because of the way Karma was gained and could be used, Aunt May, being a natural Karma sink because she was so nice and kept all of her appointments, could go up to Galactus and stab him in the eyes by burning enough Karma to get the right result.
I dunno. I found it to be pretty darn silly.


----------



## ConnorSB (Jul 21, 2005)

BattleLords of the 22nd Century. Asparagusheaded psychic people, big dumb lizards with guns, Gene-humans, which are exactly like humans but with better genes, and Orian Rogues- basically fast childish humans, are ok. I can handle that. What I can't handle is the "random but enforced background quirks table" which made my character both an Intergalactic Space-ball champion, easily recognized everywhere he goes, AND a wanted criminal in seven quadrants, AND have a paralyzing fear of open spaces (spaceball is played in open vacuum...)... and also, my class was apparently "cyborg" despite the fact that I was a, uh, shapeshifting mass of ooze...


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 21, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> You know Dave, I gotta say that playing Feng Shui is alot like making love.  If you aren't having a good time, you're doing it wrong.
> 
> _Edit - Forgot the smiley_




I guarantee you there was no love-making in it at all.  I'd still be playing it right now if there was.    

Seriously, though, the way a typical combat went was like this:

GM:  Okay, Dave what do you do?
Me: I fire my machine gun at the 12 mooks.
GM: You miss. 
Me: *Ahem* I'm firing my MACHINE GUN at the mooks.  Hence, I'm still firing.
GM: No, you missed.  Jessica, you are next.
Jessica:  I use *insert various martial arts moves here*
GM: You hit several of them.  Nick, you are next.
Nick:  I fire my MACHINE GUN at the mooks.
GM: You shoot and miss.

Basically, three of us, who used guns, never hit anything, and the one character geared towards martial arts was the superstar.  Now maybe the game is supposed to favor the martial artist.  I don't know.  (I didn't own the rulebook and we were not allowed to read the GM section or any of the sections that were not deemed relevant to our characters.)  Okay, that's fine.  But then why have dozens of pages on guns?!?!?

We played Rolemaster as well and it was okay, but as none of us were as familiar with the rules as we were with D&D, it wasn't too much fun for us at the time.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 21, 2005)

I've read some truly horrible games (Synnibar, FATAL), but never played those.  Of the ones I have played, the ones I would NEVER play again:

1) D6 system- I loathe it with a passion.  D6 Star Wars is the worst offender by far- the templates are extremely restrictive in a skill-based system, Jedi are horrendously overpowered, and the dice mechanics for task resolution are wonky.  Plus the system is far too cinematic for my tastes.  Every time I have played D6 system, its been a miserable and grueling experience- partly due to GM incompetence and differing play styles, but I strongly dislike the system too.

2) RIFTS- I thought the idea was cool and bought the book when I was in high school.  I basically thought "hmm, its D&D on steroids, but it might work."  It simply doesn't.  Some characters completely overshadow others, and RIFTS, even more than D&D, becomes an arms race for the biggest guns and toys.  I ran it for about 6 sessions, then gave up because it was just too much work and too frustrating.  I played it a couple times after that, and found the same to be true on the other side of the screen.  RIFTS has some cool ideas and world info, but it desperated needs another system- possibly Savage Worlds.


I too am confused by the hate for Rolemaster.   Its just simple addition and subtraction and comparing to a table.  3.x D&D uses the same mechanics for task resolution, just with the numbers on a smaller scale.  We used to play a lot of RM, and after you become even slightly familiar with it, the tables are intuitive and we ended up memorizing most of the critical and movement and maneuver results.  Granted, there were TOO MANY different tables (one for each weapon), so we made three master tables, one for edged, one for piercing, and one for crushing, and applied a weapon modifier to the roll.  Its a fun game, but also a very different one than D&D- just depends on what you enjoy, and what kind of game you're in the mood for.


----------



## Morpheus (Jul 21, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Feng Shui.
> 
> Awful.
> 
> ...




Now, that's odd, because _Feng Shui_ is generally considered one of the funnest systems by a lot of people. If you don't believe me, just start up a _Feng Shui_ sucks thread and see how fast you are flamed into oblivion (here or on rpg.net). That must have been one crappy GM (or maybe you didn't like the genre).


----------



## billd91 (Jul 21, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I guarantee you there was no love-making in it at all.  I'd still be playing it right now if there was.
> 
> Seriously, though, the way a typical combat went was like this:
> 
> ...





Any dice rolling going on or were the decisions all by DM fiat?
I think you probably have more of a DM problem than a game system problem. A PC with decent skill in firearms (which several archetypes have) and a couple levels of Carnival of Carnage and you're dropping mooks as fast as Legolas drops orcs.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 21, 2005)

I've had very little experience with most RPGs, but out of the 5 (maybe?) types of RPGs I've played, the two worst were:

1) Paladium system (playing Robotech). Absolutely the worst set of rules I've ever come across. Wretched, wretched system. The game, however, was a complete blast because the GM was absolutely, astonishingly, brilliant. _Brilliant_. However, because the rules were so bad, it really was less of a game and more of interactive story-telling sessions (which is totally _not_ my thing). However, it worked really well at the time, but I'm skeptical it could ever be replicated, same GM or otherwise.

2) WEG Star Wars. Bad. All around bad - one of my most agonizingly boring RPG experiences.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 21, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I guarantee you there was no love-making in it at all.  I'd still be playing it right now if there was.
> 
> Seriously, though, the way a typical combat went was like this:
> 
> ...




Yep, there's your problem right there.  Not doing it right. 

Try it with a different (competent?) GM.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 21, 2005)

Morpheus said:
			
		

> That must have been one crappy GM (or maybe you didn't like the genre).




One of the main rules of RPGs is that a great GM can run a fun game with a bad system.  A bad GM can run a horrible game with a great system.


----------



## Rasyr (Jul 21, 2005)

mcrow said:
			
		

> OTOH I do like HARP. It took the good elements from RM simplified them. I haven't had a chance yet to play HARP  but I look forward to giving it a go.



Well, that was part of the purpose of writing it... To provide a simpler game by which to enter the ICE family of games. Now a year and half after it has been published, I do see some things that I wish that I had done differently (like the alt stats option in HB#3), and perhaps a couple of other things as well. 

I hope that you do enjoy it once you get the chance to play...


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 21, 2005)

Morpheus said:
			
		

> Now, that's odd, because _Feng Shui_ is generally considered one of the funnest systems by a lot of people. If you don't believe me, just start up a _Feng Shui_ sucks thread and see how fast you are flamed into oblivion (here or on rpg.net). That must have been one crappy GM (or maybe you didn't like the genre).




Well, as I said, the GM later said he didn't think he ran it correctly.  It's probably an OK game, but I suffered through it for several sessions and each week I hated it more and more.  So, for me, it was the worst role-playing experience I've had.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> Any dice rolling going on or were the decisions all by DM fiat?
> I think you probably have more of a DM problem than a game system problem. A PC with decent skill in firearms (which several archetypes have) and a couple levels of Carnival of Carnage and you're dropping mooks as fast as Legolas drops orcs.




Honestly, I don't remember.  We probably rolled dice.  I don't think I would have been able to handle it at all if everything were GM fiat.  The GM in question was going through an anti-D&D phase so it's possible he was trying to showcase what a "different" game Feng Shui was and just failed.  (This was in the D&D 2E heyday when there were many different supplements that liked to push the limits of the system, and thus drove this particular GM nuts.)


----------



## JPL (Jul 21, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I never really like MSH's task resolution system nor damage. Once you actually hit something, there was no random element at all. Also, because of the way Karma was gained and could be used, Aunt May, being a natural Karma sink because she was so nice and kept all of her appointments, could go up to Galactus and stab him in the eyes by burning enough Karma to get the right result.
> I dunno. I found it to be pretty darn silly.




I realize you are probably exaggerating for effect, but as I recall, even a Red/"Kill" result by Aunt May [for a big 4 points damage...hell, give her a gun and make it 10] would not help her get through Galactus's Body Armor.  And she would probably lose big Karma for trying to kill anything.  And Galactus, of course, has huge freaking amounts of Karma himself, and can throw around those Class 1000 Cosmic Energy Control effects.

On the other hand...given enough in the Karma bank, Daredevil can beat the Hulk.  Which has happened in the comics.

I absolutely loved it, but I was young and it was my first RPG, and I am far from objective about it.


----------



## mcrow (Jul 21, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Well, that was part of the purpose of writing it... To provide a simpler game by which to enter the ICE family of games. Now a year and half after it has been published, I do see some things that I wish that I had done differently (like the alt stats option in HB#3), and perhaps a couple of other things as well.
> 
> I hope that you do enjoy it once you get the chance to play...




Maybe my one experience with RM was a bad one, but I'm still willing to give it a shot given the chance. Like I said, I never actually read the rules so what the GM was telling me to do very well could have been wrong and I would't have know it. I may have to pick up a copy sometime just to see if I have the correct understanding of the game. 

BTW I really do like HARP, and see why it won a silver Ennie, in fact when I get paid I plan on picking up some more HARP stuff. I did not mean to offend you in any way.


----------



## HellHound (Jul 21, 2005)

Personally, I'm one of the people who thought RoleMaster was fun, if a little slow to run sometimes.

But really...

K.A.B.A.L. (Knights and Berzerkers and Legerdemain). 

Your stats are percentiles, and your stat modifiers are the square root of your stats. 

To determine your chance to hit something in combat, you take your attack stat, modify it for whatever special stuff you have going on (magic weapons, two weapon fighting, etc), then take the square root of the modified stat. (Hmmm combat skill of 83, 32 points of bonuses, 19 points of penalties... total of: 9.798)

Now do the same thing for the opponent (combat skill and mods = 71 = 8.426)

Now set the two numbers as a ratio... 9.798 : 8.426 = 53.76 : 46.24 

Now you know your percentage chance to hit the opponent (54%) and their chance to hit you (46%). Roll to hit!


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jul 21, 2005)

Tough call here. I've played a lot of bad games, but a lot of it probably has to do with bad GMing.

Didn't like Megatraveller at all. I didn't like Werewolf either, but that was mostly because the Storyteller insisted that Werewolves flip out and fight the Wyrm all the time. I got really bored with being forced into that role with almost every adventure.

The Palladium systems, if left separate, aren't bad at all. I found that things start to go haywire when people start trying to combine them. Especially when Rifts is involved.

I'm going to be contentious and say D&D 3e also could be a contender, based almost solely on the attacks of opportunity system. I hate that far more than the weapon speeds of 2e.


----------



## Morpheus (Jul 21, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Well, as I said, the GM later said he didn't think he ran it correctly.  It's probably an OK game, but I suffered through it for several sessions and each week I hated it more and more.  So, for me, it was the worst role-playing experience I've had.




Wow. Just wow. Do yourself a favor and watch any (or all) of the following movies to see what is possible with _Feng Shui_ done right:

The Replacement Killers
Hard Boiled
Hard Target
Kiss of the Dragon
Bulletproof Monk


Watch some of these; find a competent GM; find out what you've been missing. And, yes, I _am_ a fan of Chow Yun-Fat...


----------



## greywulf (Jul 21, 2005)

Dragonroar. Any game with giant killer hedgehogs in has to be bad. Character generation was undecipherable too.

For straight rules badness, I'd vote Golden Heroes. I never did work out the parry rules. Character generation was funky  though.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 21, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I have a baaad feeling about this thread.




Hmmmm … I have no idea why you would say this... 



			
				mcrow said:
			
		

> Palladium is not all that bad. Another one that is reallly bad is Rolemaster, it's nickname "chartmaster" says it all.




Okay, now I do.  



			
				Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> ... Rolemaster ranks right up there as well.
> ...




I always find it ironic that fans of 3e criticize Rolemaster, given the overwhelming similarities between the two systems.

Having GM'ed both systems extensively, I find claims by 3e fans that Rolemaster is 'complex' strange.  It is actually easier in many respects than 3e.  YMMV.



			
				Rasyr said:
			
		

> ...
> AD&D (1e) - I hate limitations on my characters. I can only be a Monk if I randomly roll really high stats? Sheesh! (Never played 2e, so cannot comment on it). Actual play was not too bad, IMO, so long as you were not playing a magic user....




*Sigh*

I want to like HARP, but knowing that its author says stuff like this … well, not good.  



			
				Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> ... DM'ed - Flame away, but it was 3.0e.  I know there are probably worse systems out there to DM but I found this one the least fun of any game I DM'ed.  Of course I haven't DM'ed every system by a long shot.




I 50 percent agree with this (3e is tied with another system as my ‘least fun to GM’ system), but posting a comment like this here at ENworld … well, not a good idea.

But I have faith in my fellow humanity -- the obvious tinder has yet to ignite... 



			
				Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Poor Role Master always gets so much hate...
> 
> Not a perfect system, but I really enjoyed my RM games.




I agree.  I really don’t get the RM hate that some d20 fans espouse.  It is ridiculous, given the similarities between the two systems.  

But then again, sometimes siblings hate each other with a passion that people outside the family cannot understand.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Space Opera ...




I have a soft spot for this game.  I read it many times while a young lad (age 12-13).  For some reason, I thought that figuring this game out would be amazing -- it would uncover the mysteries of life.  

Good times.


----------



## mcrow (Jul 21, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> *Sigh*
> 
> I want to like HARP, but knowing that its author says stuff like this … well, not good.





What do mean by that? Are you saying that HARP does not have flexible character creation? it seems pretty flexible to me.


----------



## Rasyr (Jul 21, 2005)

mcrow said:
			
		

> BTW I really do like HARP, and see why it won a silver Ennie, in fact when I get paid I plan on picking up some more HARP stuff.



Cool!!


			
				mcrow said:
			
		

> I did not mean to offend you in any way.



 Aww.. I am actually pretty hard to offend most of the time (though there are a few things that can immediately "push my buttons" as my wife calls it). So no worries there.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 21, 2005)

mcrow said:
			
		

> What do mean by that? Are you saying that HARP does not have flexible character creation? it seems pretty flexible to me.




Ummm ... my point was not that HARP does not have flexible character creation.   It does, and I like HARP.

My point was that AD&D 1e has certain virtues as a system that have *nothing* to do with 'flexibility'.  

A failure to appreciate those virtues is a pity, IMO.

But my more general point in that post was that *any* designer of *any* RPG probably should not post in this thread for purely pragmatic reasons.

Any RPG that someone criticizes is bound to be liked by some other poster (and, well, AD&D is still liked by huge numbers of people even today).  It cannot help any designer to antagonize potential customers.

Pragmatics aside, though, I think that there are different virtues in a wide variety of different systems.  I have attachments to both 'Space Opera' and 'Fighting Fantasy'.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jul 21, 2005)

Let's see...

I've never cared for any of the WoD games, but that has little to do with the system (which a friend of mine used to great effect in his own WoD-system based RPG, "American Jihad"), and a lot to do with execution.  The way the game is set up, rather than getting "horror roleplaying", you end up with a lot of politicking at best, hack and slash at worst.  If I want to play a game about politics, power-mongering and social climbing, I'd much rather play Fading Suns or my own D&D homebrew.  That's not to say that the premise of these games is a bad one, it just doesn't work as advertised (and, barring a miracle, probably can't).

I liked WEG Star Wars... I don't really understand what the problem people have with the template system was, given that from what I could see, they really didn't do anything except pre-assign the PC's free 6d worth of stats, make a list of likely skills that the character would have, and give some bonus equipment.  Very few of my players ever even bothered with them, since there didn't seem to be any reason for them.

Though, that said, I vastly prefer d20 Star Wars.  The action and Force rules are much better... my only peeve is power scaling.  The problem with d6 Star Wars was that powers on par with the main characters of the films were completely out of reach for the PC's (except for, perhaps, in a few areas, if a player plunked all of his Character Points into one or two skills).  d20 Star Wars suffers from the other extreme- advancement tends to be so quick that PC's can rapidly out-power the characters from the films- and, on top of that, tend to be optimized to the point that the NPC's as written wouldn't stand a chance against the PC's, who typically have piles of custom-designed equipment and higher skill ranks (one Consular 7/ Master 1 in a game that I ran boasted a "move object" score higher than Yoda's... at 8th level.  Given how strong she was in all areas-the character had an 18 Intelligence, thus 11 skill points each level- at higher levels the PC would have been easily the most skilled force-user in the galaxy.  It can be rather hard to challenge PC's like that for very long...)

Back on topic, however, I'm not sure what the worst RPG system I've ever played was.  Maybe Fuzion... didn't impress me one bit.  HOL, but that was a feature, not a bug.   A friend in high school designed a "Final Fantasy" version of D&D 2nd edition that was munchkin city, and rather dull... but that doesn't count, given it was homebrew...


----------



## Templetroll (Jul 21, 2005)

I put Powers and Perils down while doing character creation.    Didn't like it.

RM was good but I got to play an Uruk Hai so my view of the game is colored by being able to exhibit overbearing aggressive attitude.  Everyone in the party had wildly different characters and the GM was able to give us all chances to shine and opportunities to die.  Sometimes in the same situation.

1e was fine; I played that with one DM who made us roll 3d6 in order once and play what we got.      However, his world was so dangerous that we were able to convince him to let us all play three characters at first level!  Often, one would survive.


----------



## mcrow (Jul 21, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Ummm ... my point was not that HARP does not have flexible character creation. It does, and I like HARP.
> 
> My point was that AD&D 1e has certain virtues as a system that have *nothing* to do with 'flexibility'.
> 
> ...




oops... I misunderstood you.   Yes, I agree with the above people are bound to like things you dont but the diversity in the systems makes it so that every RPer can find a game they like.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jul 21, 2005)

Haven't played it, but I'd have to say Continuum. Not that its badly written, just badly presented, in my opinion.


----------



## Gunton The Terrible (Jul 21, 2005)

I don't remember exactly why, since its been so long, I would have to say Cyborg Commandos.  I just remember playing one session and not being impressed.

Marvel Super Heros also gets a vote.  Why was it just as easy to hit Spiderman then was to hit The Hulk?

Warhammer the RPG never impressed me.  I guess I didn't understand why I had to start the game as a peddler or some other strange profession.


----------



## JamesDJarvis (Jul 21, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Seconded. How many hit locations on the human body does one need exactly?




about 30 it'd seem.


----------



## JamesDJarvis (Jul 21, 2005)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> too am confused by the hate for Rolemaster.   Its just simple addition and subtraction and comparing to a table.  3.x D&D uses the same mechanics for task resolution, just with the numbers on a smaller scale.




Nope not the same mechanics , you say so yourself.  There is no chart to check in 3.x D&D, clearly different mechanics.  In 3.x D&D you generally succeed or fail at a task in RM there could be dozens of different outcomes based on the roll, modifiers and index beign checked on a chart.  

Weapon damage is how many dice in RM? Oh yeah, it is a modifier used on chart-X,  again, different mechanics from 3.x D&D.  

I myself am still confused about the hate for Rolemaster it was an okay game.


----------



## F.C.Desoya (Jul 21, 2005)

Bureau 13....or was I the only one who ever played it?  Great idea....bad system.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 21, 2005)

The worst game I've ever played didn't have a name.  I was at one of the local conventions and there were no rpg games being played except 1.  We didn't recoginize the system but hoped for the best.  We stat down and this guy is sitting here with a binder with about 800 pages of lined paper in it.   He then proceeded to tell us how this is a game he developed and that it was the best game in the world.  His pitch was a person can do anything they want.  he proceeded to talk about the game which had 50 races in it and 45 classes.  He also offered that we can make up classes if he didn't have them.  He proceeded to show us the races which consisted of hand drawn and poorly colored pictures that looked as a kindergardener.  We were tryingto be nice so we sat through his 45 minute boring explanation, which was less explanation of his system and more rant about how bad every incarnation of dungeons of dragons and all other systems are.  He then nshowed us the world, which consisted of 20 different areas each representing a different time period, race, and ethnic background.  We so did not want to be rude, because we were the only 2 people at the game, but the silliness of the concept was too much.  we made up some excuse about leaving our lights on and swiftly left the room.  

My second runner up is the Palladium system.  It just looks way too complex for me to have fun.  Me and my gf were attending yet another convention and i was parking the car.  I told her to go and find our table and waht game we were signed up at (a d20 game).  Unfortenly she sat at the wrong table.  I got there, sat down and saw character sheets that looked lmore like what you'd find in a military briefing.  Fulll of percentages, and numbers.  The guy then explained the rules and it was too much.  We polityly told him that this gamem was way too complicated for us.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 21, 2005)

Gunton The Terrible said:
			
		

> Warhammer the RPG never impressed me. I guess I didn't understand why I had to start the game as a peddler or some other strange profession.




I've never really played a system I hated, but I have to say there were more parts of that system that annoyed me than any other I've played so far. The character progression just did not make sense to me. And I found it irritating that we never got any sort of sanity bonus/penalty for constantly being exposed to chaos monsters - I always felt that after so much exposure we would either get used to it or just go completely off the deep end, but the game treated it as if you were seeing chaos creatures for the first time every time. Or maybe my GM wasn't interpreting the rules as intended. That's always the question when you've only played a system with one GM.

[edit] Oh, I forgot! A cobbled-together mishmash of Hero and FASA Star Trek rules for a Star Trek campaign. My character sheet was 3 1/2 pages long and I had more skills than I could keep track of. The campaign was actually a lot of fun for a while, but I never liked the system the GM was using. I don't know why we didn't just stick with one or the other.


----------



## Wombat (Jul 22, 2005)

Hmmm, of the games I've actually played I'd have to say the original _Morrow Project_ -- bad set of combat rules with nothing else, plugged into an over-prepared, hyper-survivalist mentality, along with some truly bizarre notions about politics and human communities.  The roleplaying aspects were sort of tacked on after the fact and made no sense.  Terrible, terrible, terrible.  

_Aftermath_ I never even attempted _because_ of _Morrow Project_.

_Chivalry & Sorcery_ I had a brief run in, but not enough to really determine.  Then again the character generation system was both so complex and so random that it didn't bode well.  _Space Opera_ and _Powers & Perils_ I only used to create characters; never actually played, but both, again, drove me crazy over the weird randomness of the character creation process -- in P&P a normal human being could not pick up a sword, and it was possible for your character to be anything from a flailing pile of jelly (well, almost) to a demi-god at the beginning of the game (and this meshed with a background that seemed to combine Gilgamesh with Conan and the Daoine Sidhe, making the Wombat's brain go pop).  

Of course I also have played in a couple of awful homebrew games, but let's just leave those in the graves they dug for themselves


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 22, 2005)

While I own a copy of Synnibarr just so I can say I own a copy of it, I've never played it. My players made me put it away and under the couch and not on the shelf so it wouldn't rape their 2e and 3e DnD books or something vile like that.

Of things that I've played before... GURPS. I can't stand it, with a passion. 3 hours for character creation both times I played it, and I fell asleep within an hour of playing it those times as well.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jul 22, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I always find it ironic that fans of 3e criticize Rolemaster, given the overwhelming similarities between the two systems.
> 
> Having GM'ed both systems extensively, I find claims by 3e fans that Rolemaster is 'complex' strange.  It is actually easier in many respects than 3e.  YMMV.




I like 3/3.5E.  I find it simple in the fact that most of the time I don't have to open a book.  I never got to that point with RM.  Constantly looking stuff up on a chart annoyed me.  I don't play games to be annoyed.  Just because games are similar doesn't mean that offer the same experiences.

Kane

edit: Took out the snarky comment.  I didn't need to go there.


----------



## Ambrus (Jul 22, 2005)

I'm hesitant to mention it since it's gotten very few mentions so far but I'd have to say of the few systems I've tried the White Wolf *Storyteller System* (editions 1, 2 and 3) is the worst system(s) I've tried. I said "system" mind you, not the worst game. The backstory and flavour of the World of Darkness is, for the most part, quite elegant and elaborate. The dice rolling mechanic itself however, seems to have been tacked on as an afterthought. I think it was designed to be simple and intuitive but it frustrates me more than anything else. The nuts and bolts rules are described with flowery text and oftentimes vague description as to be largely useless when it comes time to figure out the result of an action. The statistical math behind the mechanic is flawed; failure and botches become more common and possibly catastrophic the more a character improves at a skill. Any system that requires a fistfull of dice to be rolled to resolve a single action can't possibly be well designed IMHO. I'll take my D20 any day.

I haven't tried the "new" World of Darkness or their revised Storyteller system yet so many of my concerns may have been resolved by now.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jul 22, 2005)

HOL (Human Occupied Landfill)
We thought the game was a joke, but played it anyway (Come on, they had a copy of the napkin that a Denny's waitress signed and made fun of EGG because they could use: "Orcs! That's right! Big fat greasy Orcs! Big fat nasty PUBLIC DOMAIN ORCS! Eat that, Gygax!"

With things such as: "The man with no eyes!" and "Shootin' Kinda Big Guns!"

It was weird, it was fun, but it didn't make a whole lot of sense.

but, the winner, hands down was...


dum dum dum...



CYBORG COMMANDO!

My god what a heap of steaming diarehhetic moose dung fried on a skillet.

Four hours to create a character and equip them for an arctic adventure...

That we don't go on.

When the GM offered to run it the next weekend, we offered to bust open his skull.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jul 22, 2005)

1st Edition Twilight 2000. The rules were messy, the firearms underpowered, and the stats for vehicles were off. Having said that, 2nd edition twilight 2000 was one of my FAVORITE games, so they did clean it up (at least to my tastes!).


----------



## Psion (Jul 22, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I like 3/3.5E.  I find it simple in the fact that most of the time I don't have to open a book.  I never got to that point with RM.  Constantly looking stuff up on a chart annoyed me.




One again, Kane and I seem to be on the same page. I actually sort of dug RM crit charts, and was even using Arms Law in my game for a while. Just for the crit charts; I never liked the idea of looking up a different chart for every weapon for every roll.

But soon, I decided even the crit charts were too much for me and settled on a system that didn't make me look anything up.

But even then, it wasn't the charts that really killed the game for me. Though I outgrew them, they had their redeeming qualities. What killed the game for me was the accounting of character creation. I've played HERO and 3e, which are both games alledged as being dreadfully heavy. But in neither of these games did the players ask me to make their characters for them because they weren't up to the task.

That said, I wouldn't even call it close to the worst game I have ever played. It was a nice game on paper, at least.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Jul 22, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Dr. Who.
> 
> One person gets to play a powerful Time Lord.  Everyone else gets to play a wimpy sidekick.  There was a huge gulf in Time Lords and humans.  Think of a d20 game where one guy got to start at EL +10 and everyone else had to be EL +0.





Yeah, I gotta go along with this.  Heck, if someone else hadn't originally mentioned this I wouldn't admit to ever buying the thing.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 22, 2005)

Rolemaster.

The only game that, over the years, I have spent over 20 hours on and _never gotten to frickin' play a character._  Yes, twenty hours, split into four separate character generation sessions, each of which failed to finish anyone's characters.  

Screw that.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 22, 2005)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> <hijack>Actually, has anybody played the CODA _Lord of the Rings_ game? Is it any good? My impression from reading it was that it boiled down to the d20 system with the serial numbers filed off and 2d6 put in.</hijack>
> 
> -The Gneech




Yes, I was Narrator (gamemaster) for a two month campaign. It did, indeed, feel very much like d20 using 2d6. It ran pretty smoothly - although you really need to get the errata for the core book - and was fairly rules light. I found it to be fun, but I agree with Talmun - it requires a GM that is quick on his feet (I tried to be, dunno how well I did), and players willing to help perpetuate the feel of the setting. 

Luckily enough, my players really rose to the occasion and tried to keep their characters consistent with the milieu. That surprised me, since some of them were powergamers in D&D - min-maxers could really take advantage of the LotR CODA system if they wished.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the various essays about how to evoke the mood of not just LotR, but of epic fantasy in general, and found many elements of the game to be easily portable to D&D. Even the magic system could be ported, though it would require fitting a fatigue system into D&D. 

The RPG system I liked the least, coincidentally (or maybe not), was MERP (Middle Earth Roleplaying). I just never felt it was able to really capture the feel of the setting. It just seemed too rules-heavy, and the crit charts really seemed too...well, jarring and bloody to me.


----------



## Rabelais (Jul 22, 2005)

*Rollmaster*

A game written by lawyers, to be played by accountants.  Rollmaster makes me sad


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2005)

Rifts World, cool...

Rifts System, bad...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jul 22, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Can I ask why you say this?
> 
> Considering that RM and D&D3.5/d20 use almost identical mechanics for resolution, I find this to be an odd comment to say the least.
> 
> ...




Let me tell you a story.  A story of an intrepid band of adventurers, consisting of a warrior with skill at spellcraft, a hardened knight in hardened armour, and a healer of compassion and dignity, who set out into a ruined city to seek their fortune.  These brave adventurers explored several buildings and killed a few rats and centipedes before coming across their most formidable challenge: some feral women with sharpened fingernails.  These women were frightening and cunning, for while we were armed with long sharp steel devices used to stab and hack at soft meaty bits, and armour to protect from the same, the might of their sharpened fingernails turned out to be too much for us.

In other words, they kept rolling "stun for x rounds" on their damage table.  They'd hit us, do little or no damage, and stun us.  Then they'd do it again on the next round.  And again, and again.  They ended up killing us all.  We should have just been able to stab them and move on, but no, the tables said that stupid, unbelievable things should happen, so happen they did.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 22, 2005)

Synnibarr is pain.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 22, 2005)

The Worst I've Ever Played:

Palladium.  As many have said, it's a train wreck of balance attached to a cement overshoes of writing and documentation.

Synnibar.  Now, we didn't get to actually play this much.  We sat down with the book and started creating characters on a lark, wondering if the game was really *that* bad (yes).  We finally had our characters (sadly), and one of us tried to GM a game with it, but it stalled, crashed and burned in the sort of fashion that normally requires an NTSB investigation.

The Babylon Project.  (the 1997 RPG, not the current d20 game) I am a big fan of the show, and I got some other fans together and we tried our best to play this game.  A book that was written clearly as mud, with no options for playing rangers and very little for telepaths, and no rules for starship combat, and absolutely no stats for any of the main characters (even a legalese disclaimer that no characters from the TV show were in no way depicted in the book), and the mechanics were so poorly explained that we muddled, poorly though one session and never went back.


----------



## Rasyr (Jul 22, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> But my more general point in that post was that *any* designer of *any* RPG probably should not post in this thread for purely pragmatic reasons.
> 
> Any RPG that someone criticizes is bound to be liked by some other poster (and, well, AD&D is still liked by huge numbers of people even today).  It cannot help any designer to antagonize potential customers.



Akrasia, I think that you were just reading a little too much into what I said there. Let's take a closer look at it...



			
				Rasyr said:
			
		

> AD&D (1e) - I hate limitations on my characters. I can only be a Monk if I randomly roll really high stats? Sheesh! (Never played 2e, so cannot comment on it). Actual play was not too bad, IMO, so long as you were not playing a magic user.




Please note that I did take care to mention that *I* hate limitations on my characters (that was a general statement that can apply to ANY rpg. Then I gave an example of one such from 1e that I disliked (being required to roll specific stats just to play a certain type of character). And then I complimented the system by saying that actual play was "not too bad". Before you take that the wrong way, please remember that I describe HARP, the game I wrote as "pretty good" (which is also how I describe D&D 3.x), and finally I give an exception (playing a magic using character). Considering that I have never liked fire-n-forget systems of magic, that opinion is, and I did say it was just an opinion, is understandable.

Shoot! It is a lot less volatile than some of the things said about RM in this thread... hehe


----------



## HellHound (Jul 22, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> But my more general point in that post was that *any* designer of *any* RPG probably should not post in this thread for purely pragmatic reasons.
> 
> Any RPG that someone criticizes is bound to be liked by some other poster (and, well, AD&D is still liked by huge numbers of people even today).  It cannot help any designer to antagonize potential customers.




Alrighty.

You find me someone who thinks that K.A.B.A.L. is the shizznit, and I'll appologize for my earlier post to this thread.

That said, I don't think you will be finding any of my potential customers who really have a love-on for that ancient RPG.


----------



## Impeesa (Jul 22, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Aftermath.
> 
> A ruleset so bizarre and poorly put together that it pretty much quashed my interest in what I considered my favortie genre (Post APocalypse) for _years_.
> 
> ...




Haha. I still have a well-thumbed old issue of InQuest with an article about crappy games of all kinds. In with Synnibarr, Campaign for North Africa, and others was Aftermath. Their opinion: "It ain't gonna be nuclear radiation that kills the survivors of World War III, they're gonna bore themselves to death." 

Also mentioned was the RPG based on Dallas (yes, the TV series). Haven't played any of these though, so I can't nominate them here. 



			
				mcrow said:
			
		

> Palladium is not all that bad. Another one that is reallly bad is Rolemaster, it's nickname "chartmaster" says it all.




Eh, I've played both, and while Rolemaster is fairly dense, it's a hell of a lot better thought-out than Palladium. In fact, while I quite enjoyed the last (and only) long-term Palladium game I played (a lengthy Robotech campaign), I must say the rules truly are some of the worst I've ever played with.

--Impeesa--


----------



## fusangite (Jul 22, 2005)

Rabelais said:
			
		

> A game written by lawyers, to be played by accountants.  Rollmaster makes me sad



You see, what struck me about MERP, it's sad, pathetic collision with Tolkien was not the quantitative nature of the system but the fact that the attributes were D% with no bell curve, the spell list had nothing to do with the setting and if you fell out a window that was high enough up, thereby suffering a critical hit, you could learn a new language as a result (the mere use of a critical table was to be rewarded under all conditions) as a consequence of leveling.


----------



## francisca (Jul 22, 2005)

When I was in middle school, we decided to branch out and try other games.  The only non-D&D products you could find around town were the other TSR games.  I already had Gamma World 1e, other guys picked up Top Secret, Star Frontiers, and Gang Busters.  I have to say, I enjoyed Gang Busters the least.

Recently I had a look at some of the old ICE RM stuff, like the early Arms Law, et al.  And it all clicked.  The guy who was DMing our group in the mid-80s was using Arms and Claw Law.  That <pick your favorite explitive> junk played a big part in driving me out of gaming in 86/87.  So, the award for worst game I have played goes to Rolemaster.

I'm sure there are worse, but I'm a "take you word for it" kind of guy.  I'm not going near Synibarr or FATAL for love or money.


----------



## fusangite (Jul 22, 2005)

Impeesa said:
			
		

> Also mentioned was the RPG based on Dallas (yes, the TV series). Haven't played any of these though, so I can't nominate them here.



Have you seen the rules? Is there anything you can tell us about _Dallas_? I'm intrigued.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Jul 22, 2005)

How can anyone here call themselves _gamers_ and not be able to play Rolemaster with ease??    You just use the three main tables (I can't remember, it's been ten years) and the weapon table for what your using.  Yeah, each characters got some sheets of paper, but it goes easy and smoot as long as you don't nitpick every frickin' detail.

I picked it up with ease at age 15, and could crap out characters quickly.  I spend more time on 3e characters because you *must must must must* plan your character in advance.

The only game I hated playing was MegaTraveller, but that's mainly because I was given a character and told what dice to roll without learning the game first.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 22, 2005)

francisca said:
			
		

> I'm sure there are worse, but I'm a "take you word for it" kind of guy.  I'm not going near Synibarr or FATAL for love or money.




I finally recently gave in to my curiosity and damned my soul forever by downloading FATAL.  It _really is_ as bad, and as offensive, as you've heard.  You have chosen wisely.

Since I haven't played it (snort!) I still have to vote for RM, though.  Most every other game I've played, I enjoyed.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 22, 2005)

Wombat said:
			
		

> _Chivalry & Sorcery_ I had a brief run in, but not enough to really determine.  Then again the character generation system was both so complex and so random that it didn't bode well.




I played that with some of the US design staff, as part of a playtest group, all of two sessions...lotsa people at the first, like three others at the second.  It was okay, but not great.

The one game I most hated playing in?  Amber.  Perhaps it'd help if I'd liked the books to read more than the first, but I didn't.  There's also a certain point where GM fiat just gets annoying.  "Nope, you can't do that."  "...but I have the higest Endurance in the frickin' group!"  "Hey, you're not supposed to mention it!"  "Well, if you could actually remember it and take it into account, I might not feel I have to!"  Ugh.  You couldn't get me to play Amber again if you paid me.  Not even if Alyson Hannigan was sitting on my lap asking me nicely.

Brad


----------



## Impeesa (Jul 22, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Have you seen the rules? Is there anything you can tell us about _Dallas_? I'm intrigued.




Unfortunately, all the article had to say on that one was a very short blurb:

"A brain-dead RPG inspired by the TV series. What sends this down the toilet isn't just the skimpy system (four - count 'em - pages of rules), but the notion that anybody'd actually be interested in playing characters as lame as Miss Ellie and Grandpa Ewing."

A cursory Googling reveals nothing more. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Geoff Watson (Jul 22, 2005)

Robotech: General Palladium crap.

Mage: The magic system was so vague as to be useless, so the only thing that mattered for magic was how good the players were at conning the DM.

Geoff.


----------



## johnsemlak (Jul 22, 2005)

Worst one I experienced was *Lords of Creation*, though I don't remember it being unplayably bad.  Another one I hated was the TSR Indiana Jones RPG.  The system was OK as I remember, but the game didn't include Character Generation rules--you had to play a character from teh first two Ind Jones films.  I imagine people were just lining up to play Willy Scott.


----------



## twofalls (Jul 22, 2005)

ConnorSB said:
			
		

> BattleLords of the 22nd Century. Asparagusheaded psychic people, big dumb lizards with guns, Gene-humans, which are exactly like humans but with better genes, and Orian Rogues- basically fast childish humans, are ok. I can handle that. What I can't handle is the "random but enforced background quirks table" which made my character both an Intergalactic Space-ball champion, easily recognized everywhere he goes, AND a wanted criminal in seven quadrants, AND have a paralyzing fear of open spaces (spaceball is played in open vacuum...)... and also, my class was apparently "cyborg" despite the fact that I was a, uh, shapeshifting mass of ooze...




This is possible in any game. Enforcing odd background rolls is a GMing issue not a game issue. The fact that its possible to generate on a chart doesn't mean you HAVE to roll with it in the game itself. I own the Battlelords game and its a well made game for it's time.


----------



## Gruns (Jul 22, 2005)

*Mine...*

"Everway"
I'm quite sure I never actually played the game, but I won it as a prize at a Magic the Gatheirng tournament, so I at least owned it...

Later!
Gruns


----------



## Thotas (Jul 22, 2005)

The original "Top Secret" game has some great ideas, but some really odd mechanics. 

There's a Cyberpunk-genre game, possibly titled "Cyberpunk" that I played once ... I knowat least part of the reason that session didn't work was GMing related, so I won't completely slam the rule system.  But I admit to having reservations.

I'm completely unfamiliar with Synnibar.  You folks are, however, causing me to develop a morbid curiosity.


----------



## No Name (Jul 22, 2005)

Top Secret!

The combat system was absolutely horrible - especially melee combat.

But WEG Star Wars... now that was a game! It just wasn't designed for the unwashed masses to play or enjoy.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 22, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Aftermath.
> 
> A ruleset so bizarre and poorly put together that it pretty much quashed my interest in what I considered my favortie genre (Post APocalypse) for _years_.
> 
> ...




Agreed. This is the worst.

To the preceding poster - I played Rolemaster for 20 years. It had a lot of fans in its heyday and gave Monte Cook his start in the business.  While it may not be your cuppa tea - the worst? Not even close.

I will admit that that character generation system in RMSS was broken though.  RMSS was the death knell for RM.

RM2 though - was a fine and fast system with a universal mechanic - just like D&D has now.


----------



## Orius (Jul 22, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I have a baaad feeling about this thread.




Just starting this thread myself, and I'm getting the feeling that it's gonna be dominated by Palladium/Rifts and Synnibar.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 22, 2005)

Gunton The Terrible said:
			
		

> ...
> Warhammer the RPG never impressed me.  I guess I didn't understand why I had to start the game as a peddler or some other strange profession.




Ummm ... because the whole premise of the game is that the PCs are part of the world, and thus are trained in professions that would really exist in that world?  WFRP assumes that people had jobs *before* they started adventuring, rather than assuming that adventurers leap from the heads of players into the world fully armed.  

The career system really adds flavour to the world.  I love WFRP 2e, and one of the coolest things about it is the career system.  The fact that a PC can go from a rat catcher to an important knight can make for a really compelling campaign.

There are many other things about the game that I really love: the magic system, the gritty combat system, the rules for disease and insanity, etc.  But the career system if probably my favourite aspect of the system.  

It's great that Green Ronin and Black Industries will be producing lots of cool new stuff for WFRP!


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 22, 2005)

_Dangerous Journeys_, by Gary Gygax. After playing with this, I made a vow that I would never buy another book by Gary Gygax unless someone hires a highly competent editor for him.

An editor with a big stick.

A stick with a Nail in it.

To this day, I don't know if I calculated the correct number of magi^H^H^H^H heka points for my mag^H^H^H dwæomercrafter.


----------



## Zelligars Apprentice (Jul 22, 2005)

*This is an obscure one, but...*

The official worst game I have ever (attempted to) play is a little stinker called *High Fantasy*.  Now, usually, I can find something of value in games (even if just an interesting piece of art).  But this, it had ABSOLUTELY NO redeeming values.  The character generation system was literally unusable (and I HAVE made characters in both C&S and Space Opera).  The combat system had the worst combination of chart-based and formula-based rules I have ever seen.  I don't remember the magic system, if it even had one (maybe I blocked it out with hysterical amnesia).  And yes, the art was also bad.  Ugh!  This has become our group's synonym for "bad game system".

Fortunately for the rest of the world, this game died a quiet death in the '80s after putting out a grand total of ONE supplement.

"Honorable" mention goes to another obscure '80s game called *Fantasy Wargaming*.  Horrible mechanics, but it had some decent information about feudalism, and it is the only game I have seen which has game statistics for both God (as in, the Christian God) and The Devil.  It also had a system for determining what happens to your character's soul after they died!  That is, whether they go to Heaven or Hell or spend some time in Purgatory!  Those things give it some points for audacity, if nothing else.

A few others that stand out:
*Synnibar* - Designed by someone with a SERIOUS shotgun fetish, among other things.  Scary.
*Lords of Creation*, *Powers and Perils*, and *TimeMaster*: All suffered from a common fault: good setting ideas, horrible game systems.  Many other games suffer from this, even today.  It's sad, really.  Even one of my favorite settings (Tekumel) suffered from this for most of its life.  I don't know about the current version, as my gaming budget is very limited these days.  

As far as *RoleMaster* and *Palladium* go: They have some major flaws, but are far from the worst games out there.  The complexity of Rolemaster is daunting, but it has some great ideas, and is quite playable.  I will probably stay away from Palladium, mostly because the game (especially Rifts) seems to attract far too many munchkins for my taste.  The game system is playable, if the GM tones down and evens out the power level.

OK, enough rambling.  What I really want to know is: Does anyone actually OWN that holy grail of terrible games, the legendary, semi-mythical *Spawn of Fashan*?


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 22, 2005)

There was another awful game I played once.  RedShift.  It started out as a abominable homebrew derivation of GURPS, but more complex.  Some gamers I knew a few years ago through the local gaming club brewed this up, trying to make a realistic, futuristic hard-sci-fi setting.  However, the documentation was a disaster, the rules were contradictory, and I kept getting the impression that the game was made by a gamer who had a serious obsession with "realism" and being a "real roleplayer" and didn't thing GURPS did it quite enough, so he added more rules to increase realism and "roleplaying", but only he knew what they were all supposed to be.

I didn't want to judge it by the same standard I'd put an actual published product, but given what I found: http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=724

Apparently he publsihed this homebrewed game, and the review I found at Gaming Report pretty much sums up the game really well (I didn't write the report, but I can say that it's pretty accurate).


----------



## Evilhalfling (Jul 22, 2005)

Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles/ heros unlimited crossover. 

My slightly insane  mutant Otter with an Axe, and his companion a Cyborg with 1d4x100 dmg gernades.
Did anyone else just assume that all mutants rolled on the random insanity tables? they were right after the char gen, and there was no obvious break. 

I would say Rifts but I after finishing a character who had a MegaDamage knife I walked away.

GURPS Discworld - comic games should not have that level of minutia 

Marvel Super Heros - ah the joy of random powers and power strength. 
monstrous fighting ability(60), good strength(10) (sigh)
Amazing damage force bolts (30) Fair armor/shields (6) just call me paper tiger.


----------



## James Heard (Jul 22, 2005)

Zelligars Apprentice said:
			
		

> "Honorable" mention goes to another obscure '80s game called *Fantasy Wargaming*.  Horrible mechanics, but it had some decent information about feudalism, and it is the only game I have seen which has game statistics for both God (as in, the Christian God) and The Devil.  It also had a system for determining what happens to your character's soul after they died!  That is, whether they go to Heaven or Hell or spend some time in Purgatory!  Those things give it some points for audacity, if nothing else.



But have you played it? I mean, I have the game and once or twice tried to knock out some characters in it but I think I remember that there really weren't any mechanics beside character creation. Basically what I remember about it was that it was the one gaming book I decided that I'd better hide from my religious grandmother, that it had a lot of nice things to say about other gaming systems, and that I think I remember a percentage chance based upon your zodiac sign for being a pervert? Ah, what we won't buy when we're young.


			
				Zelligars Apprentice said:
			
		

> *Lords of Creation*, *Powers and Perils*, and *TimeMaster*: All suffered from a common fault: good setting ideas, horrible game systems.  Many other games suffer from this, even today.  It's sad, really.  Even one of my favorite settings (Tekumel) suffered from this for most of its life.  I don't know about the current version, as my gaming budget is very limited these days.



I've actually played Timemaster and didn't have that much of a problem with it, except that expecting gamers to engage in ethical timeline behavior was pretty much DOA upon proposal as far as a bunch of teenage gamers were concerned. Lords of Creation though, was just...bizarre. I wish I could find my copy of it so that I could quote to everyone just HOW bizarre it was. It's another game that I don't know how anyone could manage to start a game out of it.


			
				Zelligars Apprentice said:
			
		

> As far as *RoleMaster* and *Palladium* go: They have some major flaws, but are far from the worst games out there.  The complexity of Rolemaster is daunting, but it has some great ideas, and is quite playable.  I will probably stay away from Palladium, mostly because the game (especially Rifts) seems to attract far too many munchkins for my taste.  The game system is playable, if the GM tones down and evens out the power level.



Mechanically they work, sometimes - but in general Palladium games are just horrific to actually run and play in IME. Rolemaster I've had _some_ better experiences with, but in general everyone who was running Rolemaster that I've played with eventually switched to GURPS - which is another game I just don't enjoy at all, no matter how much I covet some of the supplements.

Tri Tac Systems game, Fringeworthy, meets the subtheme of this thread for me though. It was absolutely brilliant and I've used it's fluff over and over again without ever actually being able to make much sense of the mechanics of the game - making it the best game that has the worst system I won't ever play with. Usually when I run a Fringeworthy game I use the Interlock D10 system, the one that's used in Mekton and Cyberpunk. It's certainly not perfect, but it's less crunchy than d20 and more crunchy than Storyteller. It's the Goldilocks of gaming systems as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jul 22, 2005)

I'd like to pitch in a defense for Warhammer FRP, if I might.

The career system is there for several reasons. One, it is to reflect the harsh and capricious nature of the world. You've got no real control over where you end up (until the game begins, o'course)- if you're lower class, you're lower class, and if you're a noble, well, good for you.

The Warhammer universe is not a romantic or heroic one- it is mostly about the peril. Lots of peril. 

The other bit is to emphasis the fact that 'adventurers' tend to be psychopaths, mercenaries, criminals, fugitives or just plain crazy. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just live in a town and try to get by, like everyone else? Something- which might well be the career you start with, oh ye who rolled a Rat Catcher, Gong Farmer or Bone Picker- drives your characters to adventure, and unlike most other games, it isn't necessarily because you _want_ to be adventuring. 

Part of it is also that there's an expectation of downtime. A WFRP campaign doesn't look like..."And then they defeated the Lich King, and travelled south, and defeated the Dragon King, and then went West, and defeated the Dragon Lich King..." WFRP characters are not constantly adventuring. Adventuring is what happens to them in-between doing normal (for their career) activities. Unless you're on one of the epic deals, like Paths of the Damned or The Enemy Within.

So, you might find your Thief, Noble and Bone Picker thrown together for some crazed adventure, and a year later they find themselves together again...

Regardless, the career system takes a lot of getting used to. I think if you give it a shot, you'll find it uniquely entertaining and downright charming. Just forget about having _powerful_ characters, and focus on having characters _who have all their limbs_. It's closer to Call of Cthulhu than D&D in many respects.

As for "getting used to the horror", well, the Ruinous Powers are Lovecraftian; fundamentally poisonous to the reality in which your characters belong. You can't get used to them just like you can't get used to toxic waste.

As for the worst RPG I ever played, it'd have to be Shadowrun. Don't get me wrong, I dig the setting- it makes no sense, but in a kind of goofy, Hey-it-was-the-80's way, it's just the system...can't wrap my head around it to this day. Much too clunky for my tastes.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 22, 2005)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I'd like to pitch in a defense for Warhammer FRP, if I might...
> 
> ... It's closer to Call of Cthulhu than D&D in many respects....




Great explanation of WFRP, Professor!


----------



## MonsterMash (Jul 22, 2005)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> I made a character for (the original) _Bunnies and Burrows_, but never got to play him.
> 
> -The Gneech



_Bunnies and Burrows_ wasn't that bad in play. I've still got my copy of the original edition in store somewhere.

_Flash Gordon and the Warriors of Mongo_ - not necessarily a bad game as such, but not the RPG that it claimed to be - too programmed and it would mean that it was boring after a couple of plays. It did have great art from the original comic strips though (Alex Raymond IIRC).

Games that I didn't enjoy (so not bad, but didn't suit me):
_MERP_ and _Chivalry and Sorcery_


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Space Opera
> 
> Okay, I liked it but my freinds who frankly didn't understad calculus and were not that profiecient with a graphic caculat and took art classees instead of the hard sciences were confused.  "Space opera, the game written by math geeks for math geeks" is what I always called it.




Gosh, that brings back good memories. Space Opera, while not making a whole lot of sense as a game system, was the foundation for the most successful campaign I ever ran - a group of 4 or f5 friends expanded by word of mouth until in the end I was running adventures every friday evening for 14-15 people! Fantastic fun, very fast-and-loose. The adventures were a lot like pretty anarchic james bond movies, and I found it simple to take traveller adventures (especially the 'amber zones') and convert them for use.

Wow, those were fun days, and even now (more than twenty years later) some of my players still reminisce about those adventures.

I'm not saying the system was great, it certainly wasn't. But man we had fun!

Cheers


----------



## Morpheus (Jul 22, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Great explanation of WFRP, Professor!




Best summary of WFRP I have ever heard..."Players begin the game thinking they're playing D&D, but then find out their playing Call of Cthulhu." It might have been Teflon Billy who said it or quoted it...


----------



## Darkness (Jul 22, 2005)

Zelligars Apprentice said:
			
		

> Does anyone actually OWN that holy grail of terrible games, the legendary, semi-mythical *Spawn of Fashan*?



I think Piratecat managed to get copies for himself and some other people here a few years ago.


----------



## Gulla (Jul 22, 2005)

I'm a bit surprised that noone yet has named *Aria*. It is by far the worst game I have ever tried to play. It took me over a month to read through the rules, and another one to (presumably) understand it. Granted, English is not my native language, but I had more trouble with Aria than with anything else i have read (including 'close to original' Shakespeare, Arthurian poetry and advanced mathematics and physics).

(Dis)honourable mention also to Vampire (any system where your chances of fumbling rises with your skill stinks) and Ars Magica. I have played very successfull campaigns in both, and I have GM'ed AM extensively, but the systems are very bad. (I haven't played VtM since 1. ed as I don't like the setting, and have been told that WW have fixed the system later)

My main problem with Ars Magica is that it is so easy to make a useless character. Even experienced players have had problems with this. The difference between an optimized character and a seemingly competent character is enormous. (Or it was in 2, 3 and 4. ed). And even if the idea behind the magic system is pure genius it very often bogs down as the players wonder "which of my million options should I use now, and how difficult will each be compared to my skills". 

Not that anything would stop me from playing AM if a Nice GM/troup has an opening (except maybe my wife claiming I don't have time for more gaming   )

Håkon


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 22, 2005)

The worst game system I've owned and played was Starships and Spacemen, a rubbish star trek kind of thing with the serial numbers filed off and fun deliberately excluded from 1978.

You can see a little bit about it here http://www.sden.org/jdr/spaceopera/GB/goodies/spacemen.htm

Bizzarely, you can still buy it for a mere $9 on drive through RPG
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/catalo...d=881&osCsid=61bc245bee5fffffe647677c1a6bf3da

I strongly recommend that you don't!


----------



## Bront (Jul 22, 2005)

adwyn said:
			
		

> I've played all of the mentioned games except Synnibar and have to say that as klunky as they were they were playable, albeit often with a bit of guessing at what the authors intended.



  You played in a FATAL LARP?   

My worst game ever played?  Amber.  Diceless just didn't work.  Basicly, we could do things if the GM said we could, and couldn't if the GM said we couldn't.  I think some of it may have been GM issues too, but the system just sucked horibly.

I liked rifts for a change of pace, but the more I played it, the more I realized it's suckitude.  Cool concept, good for storytelling, bad for actual system rolling (I remember killing the GM's pet monster in one shot from 1.5 miles away).

Trinity (AEON, I had the origional book without the sticker) wasn't that great either.  Was a dumbed down even more storyteller system.

I enjoyed Rolemaster to a point, but the charts wore on me after a while, and not everyone seemed to be able to understand the system (These same people have trouble with the D20 system mechanics too though).


----------



## BigAlzBub (Jul 22, 2005)

I read some of FATAL, and it’s diabolical.  I rolled up a character for Rolemaster and it was hard work (never played it).  Space Opera...ugh...we recently played a game of it, we were desperately looking for the skill system...but it doesn't seem to have one.  The Babylon project is fairly bad.  Alternity (pre-errata) is dross.  I don't think Palladium is as bad as everyone says (it’s still pretty awful though) but Beyond the Supernatural is the worst Palladium game I own.  CODA Star Trek is appalling, it’s a bastard child of D&D 3.0 and the old ICON system from last unicorn games, except they took everything that was wrong with ICON and made it worse.  Cyberpunk while it has a lot of style and a decent background, has some major flaws, like if you wear a light armour jacket you are virtually immune to small arms fire except when someone has a heavy pistol pressed into the small of your back, or 3 cotton t-shirts provide the same sort of protection as powered armour?!?  Doctor Who is terrible, Hi-tech games where technology is an excuse to short circuit the plot are bad, and time travel is a recipe for disaster, so a game with hi-tech and time travel...ugh.

I would like to defend Amber however; the rules are really bad, so bad in fact that they force you to role play, but with the right GM and a good story...fond memories.  As others have said if you don't have fun playing Feng Shui you’re doing something wrong.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 22, 2005)

Zelligars Apprentice said:
			
		

> OK, enough rambling.  What I really want to know is: Does anyone actually OWN that holy grail of terrible games, the legendary, semi-mythical *Spawn of Fashan*?




Yep, I sure do. Darkness is right; Piratecat somehow managed to find the author, and had him print up copies for a few dozen of us. This was fairly early on in the history of this community, when it was actually still Eric Noah's site. The game is pretty bad, to be honest, and is, essentially, unplayable. Still, it was an honest, enthusiastic effort on the part of some young gamers, and they didn't deserve the public lambasting they got in Dragon, in my opinion. On the other hand, at least people still talk about the game, so I guess some good came of it.


----------



## JamesDJarvis (Jul 22, 2005)

Impeesa said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, all the article had to say on that one was a very short blurb:
> 
> "A brain-dead RPG inspired by the TV series. What sends this down the toilet isn't just the skimpy system (four - count 'em - pages of rules), but the notion that anybody'd actually be interested in playing characters as lame as Miss Ellie and Grandpa Ewing."
> 
> ...




Heck I played it once.  It seemed fine for one shots and was built for soap opera action but thaty really isn't tyhe usual genre explored by rpgs, no vampitres no cyborgs and the game didin't rotate around combar resolution.  I don't recall a lot about it as it was a long time ago (20 years or so); equipment was treated as a plot device and that makes sense as folks don'ty usually wander about in soaps with back packs full of equipment. It was an odd bird but it wasn't tryingh tyo do the same thing as most rpgs.


----------



## Qualidar (Jul 22, 2005)

Zelligars Apprentice said:
			
		

> *Lords of Creation*... suffered from a common fault: good setting ideas, horrible game system.



Lords of Creation had a setting idea? Must have been in a supplement. The only thing I remember about the setting was us laughing at how off-the-wall pointless it was (but then again, we were just 14). The other thing I remember was the artwork: bodies pulled out of weightlifting magazines with animal heads popped on....really; there were bear-men flexing for the camera.

~Qualidar~


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 22, 2005)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> As for "getting used to the horror", well, the Ruinous Powers are Lovecraftian; fundamentally poisonous to the reality in which your characters belong. You can't get used to them just like you can't get used to toxic waste.




Actually, as in the Cthulhu Mythos, it is _humanity_ that represents the aberration - _Chaos_ is the "true reality", and in fact humans derive most of what makes them special - their drive, ambition, and flexibility - from Chaos. They are just in a state of denial.



> As for the worst RPG I ever played, it'd have to be Shadowrun. Don't get me wrong, I dig the setting- it makes no sense, but in a kind of goofy, Hey-it-was-the-80's way, it's just the system...can't wrap my head around it to this day. Much too clunky for my tastes.




Well, you might be glad to hear that there is a new edition coming up this summer with different and streamlined mechanics...


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Jul 22, 2005)

Two way tie for me

Rolemaster and GURPS.

Actually I think GURPS might win out in the end.  

Hated Amber too.


----------



## Stormborn (Jul 22, 2005)

MERPS  - let me just say that I HATE tables.  Any RPG that requires the players to frequently consult tables isn't worth playing - and why i feel the need to add IMO I don't know.


I have never played Feng Shui, but i have read over the mechanics.  Not much and not in detail, but enough to see why the previous poster hated them.  Like much of Stolze stuff (UA for example) the free form style isn't for every group.  In fact if you have even 1 of the wrong type of player I can see it beign a miserable experiance for all.  I love Stolze's setting material in everything of his I have read, BTW, but have found that his mechanics leave a lot to the players' imagination, which can be great for some and terrible for others.

I guess I can see why someone would say GURPS too, but I disagree on that score.


----------



## Tinner (Jul 22, 2005)

Gruns said:
			
		

> "Everway"
> I'm quite sure I never actually played the game, but I won it as a prize at a Magic the Gatheirng tournament, so I at least owned it...




Wow. I thought Everway was a brilliant rules light system.
I ran a few campaigns of it, and once you got the hang of it, it was a blast!
I have found that "old-school gamers" had a much harder time handling Everway than those players new to roleplaying.
I used Everway as an instructional tool in a creative thinking class I taught for a group of 13-16 year olds, and they took to it with ease!


----------



## Rafael Ceurdepyr (Jul 22, 2005)

Empire of the Petal Throne.

I played this back around 1983 when my (now ex-)husband [the same one who once played a phraint in a MERP game] was obsessed with it.  Actually I don't remember anything about it except maybe unpronounceable names.  It just leaves a bad taste in my mind.

I confess to loving the tables in RM.  How can you not love a result of "split in twain" on a crit table.     Doesn't mean I think it's a great system, though.  I thought I liked it, based on playing it in the late 70s, until I resurrected a campaign of MERP recently.  Ugh.  If I ever suggest it again, my players will lynch me.  GREAT maps though in the MERP supplements.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jul 22, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> <SNIP>the company I work for  <SNIP>




Well, that explains a lot.   (Also, I've been lurking for about 5 years here on and off.  So I'm an old new person.  )


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jul 22, 2005)

I still own a game called Universe, character creation is a nightmare and I never understood the rules, it remains unplayed and IMO unplayable.

I’ve never liked Traveller 2300 aka 2300AD. Love the background, hate the rules.

FASA’s Star Trek shows why percentage skill based systems don’t always work. “Standard orbit Mr Sulu” [roll] “Er, I’ve failed Captain.”

HeroWars/HeroQuest by Issaries. I love Glorantha, I want to love this game, I want to play this game, I can’t. Why? [That’s a genuine question btw, lots of people think it’s great, but I can’t cope with it. Perhaps I’m too simulationist.]

DnD 3.0+ Sorry but it’s much too complicated for me!

And, the worst (though I’ve never played it) must be FATAL. The website says ‘F.A.T.A.L. is a role-playing game like no other.’ I’d certainly agree with that statement. Unfortunately, it goes on to say ‘It is the goal of Fatal Games to astound and thrill those who seek a role-playing game based on historical and mythological accuracy, realism, and detail.’ This frankly is bollocks, this is a mean minded nasty sexist game with no basis in history, myth, accuracy, realism or detail. I once read a review which said (IIRC) ‘Their tagline is ‘FATAL GAMES, where the dice never lies’ I didn’t know that you could buy dice with ‘this game sucks’ written on every face.’

Finally, I’m a Dr. Who fan (of the series, not the game) I don’t remember FASA’s Dr. Who game (it sounds a bit like their Star Trek game). Dr Who Time Lord was much better. But if the game is structured like the TV series, then what’s wrong? I loved the James Bond game, because it worked if you acted like Bond, go with the flow, let yourself be captured by the bad guys! I know lots of people who couldn’t cope.


----------



## swrushing (Jul 22, 2005)

Well, frankly, every game i have ever played in saw the GM having as much of an impact as the rules on how well the rules worked, for a variety of reasons. An average system where the Gm doesn't havdle it well can seem very poorly done.

But, the most objective "system sucks" kind of assessment for me comes down on rolemaster.

The most memorable scene that highlights my distatse saw out party of six or so against something like an ogre. The fight took over 90 minutes, which was basically use swinging away in a slugfest waiting until eventually someone rolled open ended well enough to drop the thing. For over 90 minutes, the only results were us rolling and either missing or doing inconsequential bashing damage and it swinging, mostly missing, but the few hits it scored taking someone down. Eventually, one of the second tier fighter types did what the rest had failed to do, including the three pure fighter types, open ended in a big way and got the critical that felled the beast.

After the fight, the two guys who died leveled up (death gave you butt loads of xp), the two surviving fighters got a lot of Xp as their small crits over and over added to Xp, the guy who felled the beast got the next amount and the mage got next to nil since his few spells did little.

Now we get into more or less GM issues almost fully...

Then, the Gm realized how far the damage and wounds outstripped the healing capacity and so in order to not have this "intro encounter" disrupt the campaign we started finding tons of healing items since the designated full healer type was just not going to get the job done. he needed LEVELS before he could mend bones and such.

Distant memories now, over 2 decades, and i am sure the game has gotten better since then, but that run and the few that followed kept me from ever giving it a chance again. 

Well, that and hearing the ICE guys at a con ~91 laughing at their buyers for RM describing how "all we have to do is throw in a new crit chart or two and they will buy anything. we thought we may have gone too far with the midwifing birth critical chart, but it turned out to be popular!"


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 22, 2005)

Zelligars Apprentice said:
			
		

> "Honorable" mention goes to another obscure '80s game called *Fantasy Wargaming*.  Horrible mechanics, but it had some decent information about feudalism, and it is the only game I have seen which has game statistics for both God (as in, the Christian God) and The Devil.  It also had a system for determining what happens to your character's soul after they died!  That is, whether they go to Heaven or Hell or spend some time in Purgatory!  Those things give it some points for audacity, if nothing else.




I was wondering when this would come up. But did you play it? Did anyone (on earth)?

I did like it as a reference back in day, before I knew better (and I hate to say it, but there is some common elements between its main premise and TerraV: using RL myth, legend, and history as a more explicit basis for your fantasy RPG. But then again, a lot of things have that premise)

One thing I haven't seen mentioned:
*Buck Rogers*...


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 22, 2005)

HellHound said:
			
		

> ...
> K.A.B.A.L. (Knights and Berzerkers and Legerdemain).
> 
> Your stats are percentiles, and your stat modifiers are the square root of your stats.
> ...




Sweet baby Jesus, I think we have a winner.

I can't really think of a game I've actually played that I despised purely for the system. Usually if I dislike a system, it's because it is inadequate instead of some idiotic mess like the above.

I remember playing RIFTS a handfull of times and not really caring for it - the power disparity was very obvious. 

Harnmaster is another case of a wonderful background hampered by some (IMO) unnessesarily complex rules. I can't really say I played it enough to call them 'bad' rules but the system just felt ... odd, for some reason. It's been several years since I played it, though, so I probably don't remember what specifically I disliked. 

One system I never have played, mainly because I never could figure out _how_ to play it much less run it, was the original DC Heroes system. I actually was burned twice by this, as I picked up the D6 version of it as well and found that to also be almost indecipherable. At least I could eventually puzzle out character creation in the original system but I never did manage to do even that in the D6 (or whatever they were calling it at that moment) version.

I never really did figure out Chivalry and Sorcery, either (first ed) but then I'm nor certain I was ever suppossed to. There was a lot of other very useful stuff in the book, though, so I was actually pleased to own it at the time.

I never did find Rolemaster to be hard or particularly vexing to play or GM.


----------



## Rydac (Jul 22, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Aftermath.
> 
> A ruleset so bizarre and poorly put together that it pretty much quashed my interest in what I considered my favortie genre (Post APocalypse) for _years_.
> 
> ...




Another second here for Teflon Billy's thoughts on Aftermath. In fact wasn't it FGU that made Aftermath along with Space Opera and Chivalry and Sorcery ? The latter two were one and done sessions...Aftermath I tried twice because I too like the genre.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jul 22, 2005)

JPL said:
			
		

> I realize you are probably exaggerating for effect, but as I recall, even a Red/"Kill" result by Aunt May [for a big 4 points damage...hell, give her a gun and make it 10] would not help her get through Galactus's Body Armor.



Ah yes, Aunt May vs. Galactus.   Marvel Team-up #137, a classic!



Worst RPG I've ever played?   Don't remember the name of it but it was a D&D knockoff back in the early 80's that required dice rolls and cross-referencing seven different charts for every single combat move, and each chart used a percentile roll with 100 different possible outcomes.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan (Jul 22, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> HârnMaster is another case of a wonderful background hampered by some (IMO) unnessesarily complex rules. I can't really say I played it enough to call them 'bad' rules but the system just felt ... odd, for some reason. It's been several years since I played it, though, so I probably don't remember what specifically I disliked.




I'll have to leap to the defence of HârnMaster. There are, unfortunately, two current versions HârnMaster Gold (based on first edition HârnMaster) and HârnMaster3 (based on the much simpler second edition). Gold is too much for me to much detail and too many tables. HM3 is a much simpler system. Skills, make one roll, combay is a hit vs. parry matrix followed by a location & damage roll. Easy (nd no Hit Points)


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 22, 2005)

Rafael Ceurdepyr said:
			
		

> Empire of the Petal Throne.
> 
> I played this back around 1983 when my (now ex-)husband [the same one who once played a phraint in a MERP game] was obsessed with it.  Actually I don't remember anything about it except maybe unpronounceable names.  It just leaves a bad taste in my mind.




Empire of the Petal throne usually gets mentioned as the RPG setting with the most depth.  Usually people would argue the crown went to EPT or Glorantha.

My problem with it was it wasn't very approachable.  It was in the category of campaigns I hate - the "let's make everything different so players have to spend as much time reading the setting as I did designing it."


----------



## SWBaxter (Jul 22, 2005)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> <hijack>Actually, has anybody played the CODA _Lord of the Rings_ game? Is it any good? My impression from reading it was that it boiled down to the d20 system with the serial numbers filed off and 2d6 put in.</hijack>




Or in other words, a lot like the MegaTraveller system, which predates d20 by around 15 years IIRC.

CODA's LOTR is pretty decent, given that they had to stick to the movies. ICE's MERP has generally better supplements, but their license was apparently a lot more permissive so they could flesh out lots of places and time periods only briefly mentioned in the books.


----------



## Aristotle (Jul 22, 2005)

1.) Palladium's (I played Rifts specifically) game mechanics just kill me. Sorry palladium fans. I really wanted to like this game, and have a ton of the books as I did enjoy some of the setting ideas, but I just couldn't get past the horrible (in my opinion) game mechanics.

2.) GURPS runs a close second for me. I just "didn't get it". I have various GURPS products and find them to be some amazing tools for developing campaigns... that I end up running with other game systems.


----------



## spectre72 (Jul 22, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Dr. Who.
> 
> One person gets to play a powerful Time Lord.  Everyone else gets to play a wimpy sidekick.  There was a huge gulf in Time Lords and humans.  Think of a d20 game where one guy got to start at EL +10 and everyone else had to be EL +0.




Another Vote for Dr. WHO

And to add to the pain was only a true Dr. WHO fan has any idea what is going on.

When it is the DM who is the fan everyone else is in serious trouble.


----------



## Ronin84 (Jul 22, 2005)

So were we like the only three people who  tried K.A.B.A.L. (Knights and Berzerkers and Legerdemain) that game was such crap!

I was going to nominate anything Palladium, the idea and background is usually good, but the mechanics are horrible.

So KABAL 1st 

Palladium/Rifts 2nd


----------



## SWBaxter (Jul 22, 2005)

It's easy to find bad free games. The only game I've ever paid money for and tossed in the trash a day or two later was a superhero RPG I picked up around 1990, called something like Enforcers IIRC. The text spent a lot of time dwelling on how simple and intuitive the rules were, while also giving instructions for increasingly complex calculations of up to quarternary* stats and combat rules that required on the fly calculation of square roots to two decimal places. I'm a math geek who's not afraid of a decent amount of rules crunch, and it was far too much even for me.

Honourable mention for a game I liked in concept but hated playing was first edition Shadowrun. I thought the basic idea was pretty cool, but both the really unbalanced rules and the metaplot where all the really cool characters were NPCs rubbed me the wrong way. That's a game I only played rather than GMed.

* i.e. your primary stats were rolled, secondary stats calculated from primary, tertiary stats calculated from secondary and primary, and quarternary stats calculated from some combination of the first three sets. Just crazy.


----------



## beaver1024 (Jul 22, 2005)

AD&D (2e), D&D 3.5 and Shadowrun 3.0. Gouging the customer for more money under the guise of an "improved" system whilst producing a crappier, more error prone system than the original just doesn't sit well with me.


----------



## Rasyr (Jul 22, 2005)

swrushing said:
			
		

> Well, that and hearing the ICE guys at a con ~91 laughing at their buyers for RM describing how "all we have to do is throw in a new crit chart or two and they will buy anything. we thought we may have gone too far with the midwifing birth critical chart, but it turned out to be popular!"



Well, luckily anybody who might possibly have said anything like that or had that sort of attitude is not part of the new ICE. The folks that worked at ICE back then are long long gone, and most are no longer even in the rpg business.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 22, 2005)

Rydac said:
			
		

> Another second here for Teflon Billy's thoughts on Aftermath. In fact wasn't it FGU that made Aftermath along with Space Opera and Chivalry and Sorcery ? The latter two were one and done sessions...Aftermath I tried twice because I too like the genre.




Yes it was. Space Opera and C&S are strong candidates for Worst. System. Evar. except I think that both Space Opera and C&S deserve to avoid that notoriety by reason of some cool ideas in their respective books.

The Space Opera stasis drugs on the PC that auto-fired in to blood stream to preserve the PCs life in cellular stasis a second before death was a very cool idea.  The Equipment guide to Space Opera was a gold mine of ideas as well.  Any present day D20 Sci-Fi DM could profit from a reading of the Space Opera equipment manual just for its wealth of ideas.

Similarly, the original C&S had great background material for running an historically-more-accurate medieval campaign which is still useful to GMs to this day. "Drop the Rock" - a light-hearted description of a medieval siege - remains one of my all time fave pieces of RPG writing.

Aftermath enjoys all of the minuses but none of the plusses of its FGU brethren.  And so it richly deserves the Worst.System.Evar  title.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 22, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Well, luckily anybody who might possibly have said anything like that or had that sort of attitude is not part of the new ICE. The folks that worked at ICE back then are long long gone, and most are no longer even in the rpg business.




St. Monte of Cook, excepted. 

(I think all you RM bashers are wusses!) 

Seriously though - if you played RM2 with a group of players and a GM who knew the system well - you'd be quite pleased with the results.  When the players and GM know the system well - combat flies along at a good pace and the criticals add a lot of fun factor to the game.

If you were trying  - as a group - to learn RM cold? I could see how that would be a significant problem for many people.  

For those whose venom is directed at RMSS character generation: I agree with you.


----------



## Imperialus (Jul 22, 2005)

just to pipe in for the defence of Heros Unlimited, it takes some tweaking and I'll admit that the rules as written suck but the concept is sound and if you pull a bit of the randomness out of character generation you can actually end up with a pretty deacent team, it's just a matter of tinkering under the hood a bit.


----------



## paragondragon (Jul 22, 2005)

*Rifts Vagabond at least comes with Asprin*

Well at least in Palladium's world, the least powerful character comes with a bottle of asprin, the rarest substance in the gaming world.   

But I personally like Palladium, and yes a five to hit in melee seems extreme...but try it's suppose to be close to realistic.  If they swing at you parry or dodge...that's what's suppose to happen.  The system doesn't work on it's own in all situations, that's why I have all kinds of different ways of modding the system.  Anyways, enough of why Palladium is a good system...the system I hate is anything White Wolf.

Vampire, Werewolf, Mage.  I think they're all crap.

And second worst would have to be that stupid old Marvel system...you can roll a first level character with more HP then the hulk...bah.


----------



## Vargo (Jul 22, 2005)

I've played Palladium, Rolemaster, MERP, GURPS, D&D, Battletech, Heavy Gear, and a bunch of other games.  None of them struck me as particularly bad.

And then there was that one time at a 'con, when I sat down at a table with good 'ol Zak himself, and played Synnibar.

Oh sweet LORD, please give me back those three hours...


----------



## SWBaxter (Jul 22, 2005)

Rydac said:
			
		

> Another second here for Teflon Billy's thoughts on Aftermath. In fact wasn't it FGU that made Aftermath along with Space Opera and Chivalry and Sorcery ? The latter two were one and done sessions...Aftermath I tried twice because I too like the genre.




FGU, as I understand it, was kind of a publishing house for games designed by freelancers. In addition to the games you mentioned, they also published (and in some cases technically still publish) Villains and Vigilantes, Flashing Blades, Bushido, Year of the Phoenix, Merc, Daredevils, Psi World, and undoubtedly others. Some of them weren't very good, and some are classics. Very much a mixed bag.

I never played Aftermath (though I own a copy), but I did play Bushido which as I understand it was a revision of the Aftermath rules system, and was a heck of a lot of fun.


----------



## Jackelope King (Jul 22, 2005)

Palladium takes the cake by a longshot: it's the only game I've ever shelved never to play again (RIFTS to be specific). Within the first twenty minutes of play, there was an obvious power gap between members of the party so vast that it boggled the mind.

A distant runner up would be Castles & Crusades: after all the buildup to rules lite D&D with a classic flavor, it turned into one long appeal to nostalgia. Biggest letdown ever. Only game I've ever returned the day after buying it.


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 22, 2005)

Marvel bashing...

I kinda liked the old Marvel game (this is way back), but I don't think we worried about the rules too much back then (and actually didn't really play it that much).

But I am still waiting to hear about Buck Rogers...


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 22, 2005)

In general, I'd have to say RIFTS. Unbalanced and klunky mechanics that are contradictary and scattered randomly through different books. 

However, honorable mention must go to a homebrew game called "Fusion Fleets" IIRC that was made by a guy in our gaming circle. Fairly hard science fiction game set a few centuries in the future that was very well thought out but literaly created by an astrophysist/chemical engineer who had a hard time thinking on normal people's levels. Combat, especially space combat was literally impossible without a calculator as it frequently required things like the square root of a function to figure out the modifier for another function. He demoed it at a gaming con once and the game would come to a standstill for five minutes as he figured out the chance for one spaceship to hit another. Of course, by time the other ship shot back, conditions had changed in the 3D continuous impulse combat system and everything had to be figured out again.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 22, 2005)

On reflection, I think that almost anything I've ever disliked about a game system has been due to the way the GM ran it, and was not necessarily something inherent in the rules. For example, I complained about the career system in WHFRP, but if my GM had allowed us some downtime between adventures it would probably have made more sense. I've never played a system where the system itself completely sucked.


----------



## Rasyr (Jul 22, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> For those whose venom is directed at RMSS character generation: I agree with you.



Unfortunately, I have to agree with this statement as well.


----------



## Chaldfont (Jul 22, 2005)

Ok, somebody tell me about this Synnibar of which you speak. I've never heard of it!

It's fun seeing everyone's opinion on the worst game. Is it bad because of the setting? the mechanics? the people you played with? Even a terrible game can be fun with the right people, or the amount of time and determination to make it work.

I've had a blast with Lords of Creation. I co-DM'd a campaign with 9 players on a three week Boy Scout summer trip to Europe. The setting is bizarre and the rules totally cobbled together, but we had fun with it because it was easy and we were young and had no great expectations. I can tell similar stories about Marvel Super Heroes, Robotech RPG, Rolemaster, (though each character sheet was over 10 pages long with photocopied attack and critical charts), WEG Star Wars, and Top Secret (how can you not like a game where you get xp for passing counterfeit money?).

But I have to agree with Battlelords of the 22nd Century (I think it was written by the same guy who wrote http://www.realultimatepower.net) and Powers and Perils. I love getting P&P out every once in a while and trying to make a character. Maybe someday I'll figure out how to run a fight!


----------



## buzz (Jul 22, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Dr. Who.



I got to play this gem not too long ago; once a year some non- and ex-gamer buds of mine and I get together to play "classic" RPGs.

My problem with _Dr. Who_ wasn't so much the setup (one powerful PC, and a bunch of players who get to be mooks), but the rules. It was a classic example fo '80s-era "generate one set of numbers in order to generate a second set of numbers that let you buy skills which define the numebrs that you actually use in gameplay." Buying skills was also very stupid. You got a cerain number of points for skills from each of your stats. The points a stat gave you bought skills related to that stat at 1:1, and others at some poorer ratio. The dumb thing was that there was no good reason I could see to purchase "cross-stat" as it were; it was just a rule that made you jump through hoops and do extra accounting. In play, that game wasn't so bad, but chargen was just a lot of wasted time generating info that never got used in play. Classic '80s crap design.

I have played (and own) _Synnibar_. It's pretty dang bad. The context in which I played it was very tongue-in-cheek, though, so we had a lot of fun.

As for _Rolemaster_... I don't really understand the hate, either. Granted, I disagree that, at least the version I played (RM2, iirc), was no more complex than 3e. RM2 starts off a bit more complex (the monster tables in _Claw Law_ and C&T were indecipherable to me); add in the Companions, and you're in the stratosphere. I mean, RMC2 added *hundreds* of skills. The group I played with used the chart-ignoring combat rules from RMC1, though, so the table-itis was reduced. We had a lot of fun; one aborted campaign was some of the best gaming of my life. As a system however, I think it's just okay. HARP seems basically to be what RM should have been all along.

Otherwise... while I've read a lot of bad games, I've luckily not played many. I spent many an hour making characters for C&S2e; I loved it then, but realize now that it was needlessly complex. Making a spellcaster invovled lots of calculations that really provided very little to the in-play experience. Three hours of math just to determine, yes, you start the game with a wand. _Space Opera_ was similarly bad, not to mention indecipherable. Still, it had light sabres and _Traveller_ didn't, so I loved it for a while. 

I did play one session and make PCs for _Fantasy Wargaming_. The rules were a mess, but I thought the introductory essays in the front of the book were great. It basically preceeded the White Wolf formula of "tons of setting and genre info first, rules last" by a decade or so.

We gamers have it really good now. The majority of RPGs I encounter these days are wonderful, and it's very easy to gather a lot of info about them before making a decision to purchase. When I was a kid, everything was shirk-wrapped and in a box*. Sales guys at shops were always trying to scam you, and gawd forbid any of them have an actual return policy. I had to go back with my mom in tow to get my LGS to take back _Man, Myth, and Magic_.


*Note to publishers: RPGs in boxes = not getting any money from buzz. Boxes are teh suck.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 22, 2005)

beaver1024 said:
			
		

> AD&D (2e), D&D 3.5 and Shadowrun 3.0. Gouging the customer for more money under the guise of an "improved" system whilst producing a crappier, more error prone system than the original just doesn't sit well with me.




I do believe this is the very first time in all of human history that someone had opinied that Shadowrun 3.0 was in any way inferior to Shadowrun 1.0.

Dude, did your guys never get into combat?  Or did you ban wired reflexes?


----------



## Jack of Shadows (Jul 22, 2005)

Well,

Sticking to systems I've actaully played I'd have to say Rifts followed by Space Opera. And both of these because of the rule systems not the settings. Rifts... Rifts is just bad. Space Opera was really cool (I still cling to my rule books) but any system that requires 5 rolls to resolve a single attack just doesn't work.

Some people have been throwing Rolemaster out and I strongly have to disagree. Rolemaster is great providing you meet one condition. All the players MUST know the rules. It's not new player friendly. That being said, my girlfriend ran a great Rolemaster game and never read the rules (of course, all the players DID know the rues). Before 3.0 rolemaster was my groups fantasy RPG of choice.

Jack


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 22, 2005)

I can understand not liking Rolemaster, but it wasn't a bad system to play, just photocopy the sheets each player would need and it cut down on a lot of the hassle. I ran a campaign in it for about a year and liked it quite a bit. I also used it for a set of high level characters I made up to run in the high level modules. 

Twilight 2000 was certainly one of the worst system. Someone did not playtest the damage rules for that. 

Space Opera was a half finished systems. In the mustering out tables one of the benefits was that you could get any body armor "up to class 14" or something to that effect. However no place in the system did it ever actually assign ratings like that to the body armor. 

Villians and Vigilantes I found could suffer from the "Dr. Who Syndrome" that someone described earlier, where you could wind up with one massively powerful character and a bunch of wimps.

Paladium/Robotech RPG - Terrific background material, but they neglected little things like a MOVEMENT SYTEM for the MECHA! Combat was also similarly crude


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Jul 22, 2005)

FASA's Star Trek RPG.  It took over an hour to resolve one round of starship combat, having to refer to charts and such.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 22, 2005)

DungeonmasterCal said:
			
		

> FASA's Star Trek RPG. It took over an hour to resolve one round of starship combat, having to refer to charts and such.




Ditto! We used Hero system for character stuff, but the starship combat was straight out of FASA. Most boring stuff I've ever done.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 22, 2005)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> But I am still waiting to hear about Buck Rogers...




This is my numero uno on the worst of the worst list.  Bad art, bad rules....just all around bad.  And this is from someone who actually liked the 80's TV series, so it's not a distaste with the genre.  It's also not that the rules were particularly clunky or complex in comparison to some other systems of its era, it's that the rules completely failed to facilitate the pulp-action feel that a Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon/Space Ranger-type game should have, like trying to play a wire-fu RPG using the rules from Call of Cthulhu.

Second place is a tie between 2e AD&D and C&C.  Both, IMO hold onto far too many AD&Disms while incorporating their own mix of clunky add-ons.  If there's anything worse than a clunky RPG, it's a clunky RPG that's been modified by people who don't really understand (and/or care about) what made the original game halfway decent.


----------



## Tetsubo (Jul 22, 2005)

Darkness said:
			
		

> I think Piratecat managed to get copies for himself and some other people here a few years ago.




I was one of those lucky few. I consider it one of the gems in my gaming collection.

Right up there with Senzar and World of Synnibarr.

Spawn of Fashan must be read to be believed...


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Jul 22, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> Ditto! We used Hero system for character stuff, but the starship combat was straight out of FASA. Most boring stuff I've ever done.




If I can force myself to get off my arse and do it, I am going to revamp the homebrew Star Trek RPG game I came up with a few years ago (which we played twice, but my players loved it) and use True20 rules for it.  It can work, I tell you!


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 22, 2005)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Spawn of Fashan must be read to be believed...




True!  But it was, I believe, the first RPG to have quest-based exp and didn't rely on combat-based exp alone.

Just goes to show you can get a good idea out of _any_ game!  You may go permenantly insane, but you can get a good idea.


----------



## Tetsubo (Jul 22, 2005)

Cybord Commando, Lords of Creation and High Fantasy were all VERY bad games. 

I'll even admit to owning  all of the supplements for Lords of Creation.

I have a soft spot for Aftermath though. It's just so darn geeky. Marrow Project is a far superior product however. Though I'm still a big fan of the Fourth Edition Gamma World rules for my Post-Apoc gaming. The new Darwin's World rules a rather nice. 

Honorable mentions: Afterwar and Blood Dawn. Both are bad.

My biggest pet peeve set of rules however is Werewolf. I never actually played it. I read through the book and afterwards said out loud, "Where are the RULES?" Werewolf is the ONLY game I ever got rid of. I sold it to a friend. I hope he has forgiven me...

As bad as the Palladium system is, I was very impressed with the After The Bomb (new one book printing that came out a few years ago) game. The setting is nice and the animal mutant rules just rock. Spider-Goats baby! Spider-Goats...


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 22, 2005)

FATAL really is a winner. Didn't play it though.


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 22, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Twilight 2000 was certainly one of the worst system. Someone did not playtest the damage rules for that.




I think they did playtest it and found that anything more realistic and deadly would be useless as an RPG and anything less deadly would hurt suspention of disbelief too much. As it was, I think it was a decent balance between playability and realism. It was not as realistic but much more playable than similar games such as Morrow Project (the only game I've seen also take into account blood loss) or Aftermath.


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 22, 2005)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> I think they did playtest it and found that anything more realistic and deadly would be useless as an RPG and anything less deadly would hurt suspention of disbelief too much. As it was, I think it was a decent balance between playability and realism. It was not as realistic but much more playable than similar games such as Morrow Project (the only game I've seen also take into account blood loss) or Aftermath.




Not the Vehicle combat damage rules.


----------



## Trellian (Jul 22, 2005)

F.C.Desoya said:
			
		

> Bureau 13....or was I the only one who ever played it?  Great idea....bad system.




I played it! Don't remember the system, but I think we probably failed to like it. I am not to keen on Conspiracy X's system either, even though the setting is probably my all-time favorite.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jul 22, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Actually, as in the Cthulhu Mythos, it is _humanity_ that represents the aberration - _Chaos_ is the "true reality", and in fact humans derive most of what makes them special - their drive, ambition, and flexibility - from Chaos. They are just in a state of denial.




I bow to your superior WHFRP knowledge; I've only recently become a fan. 



> Well, you might be glad to hear that there is a new edition coming up this summer with different and streamlined mechanics...




Yes, I am keeping my eye on that one.


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 22, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Not the Vehicle combat damage rules.




Especially the Vehicle combat rules. Again, either the vehicle gets hit and everybody dies or it gets hit and nothing happens. The random nature of vehicle combat still allowed for vehicles to be taken out with a hit of an anti-vehicle weapon without killing every PC that was inside.

If yo're going to complain about the system, complain about the character creation that only seemed to spit out green enlisted or old officers and was useless for anything but military personnel.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jul 22, 2005)

I just downloaded FATAL ... the art is generally pretty good quality, even the cartoonish stuff, which is usually comically appropriate for the material in the section.

I've just never encountered people so serious about ... empowering their own lack of proper socialization.  

--fje


----------



## Treebore (Jul 22, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Synnibarr isn't that bad once you get used to it.




Glad to see someone else played it enough to figure it out. A good solid system that stayed balanced, at least up to 49th level, anyways. I think most people got turned off by it because of how big the numbers were, or weren't capable of figuring out that each 1/10th of armor meant moving your decimal place one spot to the left on your damage totals.

I had a lot of fun GMing and playing Synnibar. A powergamers wet dream. So satisfying I haven't poweregamed with another system in 7 years now. And it was balanced powergaming! Well, far more so than any other game system.


----------



## maggot (Jul 22, 2005)

The system I enjoyed the least is GURPS.  Whether it's a bad system or not, I don't know, but it does not fit what I want out of role-playing.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jul 22, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Second place is a tie between 2e AD&D and C&C.  Both, IMO hold onto far too many AD&Disms while incorporating their own mix of clunky add-ons.  If there's anything worse than a clunky RPG, it's a clunky RPG that's been modified by people who don't really understand (and/or care about) what made the original game halfway decent.




This statement shows an almost utter lack of understanding of the system that you play (I assume), 3.x D&D, as it relates to C&C. C&C has NO clunky addons, if anything it removes rules from the 3.x scheme. C&C is so close to D&D 3.x that it seems almost ridiculous to say one is great and the other is one of the most horrible systems you ever played (although to prefer one greatly over the other is expected). *DID* you play it, or skim it at the bookstore?  I can see the AD&D 2nd ed, though, as they DID add a bunch of crazy stuff, esp. those damnable players option books, ugh.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 22, 2005)

Its obvious the nay sayers didn't give C&C a fair assessment, one of them in this thread even admitted they returned it the next day. Yep, they know what they are talking about.

Besides, my definition of actually playing a game is doing at least 3 sessions of 6 hours each, to make sure you are properly figuring things out and really understand the rules mechanics.

That is why only Aftermath gets my vote, even though I had fun roleplaying it, but when we started fighting it sucked.

RIFTS can be fun, but it does have serious issues that the GM needs to address real quick, and classes you simply should not allow.

Chivalry and Sorcery is fun too, character creation takes a while, about 30 minutes after you figure it out, and has good concepts and flavor. 

Rolemaster has its problems for me, but I still had fun whiile I played it, I just preferred other sytems.

I love Space Opera and Traveller/Megatraveller! Rules were confusing or out right wrong/didn't work, but the core of it was a blast to play. Traveller is even better now with all of the rules clarifications available.

Synnibar is a good system. Unlike RIFTS is a powergamers game that works. You just have to get used to adding and subtracting numbers in the thousands, tens of thousands, millions, etc... AND be able to move your decimal point to the left, depending on the tenths of armor involved. The only other problem was that some characters/classes (pretty much the same thing in Synnibar) were defintely weaker than others, but they were still cool and fun to play, as long as you avoided the power envy syndrome. A lot of players nowadays will have a problem with the fact that your character can easily die, even at 49th level.


----------



## Chris Tavares (Jul 22, 2005)

Wow, five pages in and I've still got a new one.

A game I actually played, and thought was the worst: West End Game's Masterbook.

Character creation was nigh-incomprehensible, and in actual play, you took your stat, rolled 2d10, added your stat, looked the result up on a chart, which you then compared to the target number. Incredibly clunky in play, especially when you were trying to do Indiana Jones.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jul 22, 2005)

Back in the "good ole days" in HS we played a LOT of game systems....

The one that stands out the most as being bad to me was HARN.

I seem to recall us spending upwards of an entire day creating our characters and when all was said and done I ended up with a mage who could create magical armor.  And it took a month to do.  And thats ALL he could do.  Enchant armor over the course of a month.

What a fun adventuring character!

DS

I don't see how D6 Star Wars has so many votes.  Any game you can get people to create characters and start playing in less than 20 minutes when they don't know anything about the game has to be worth something.


----------



## Zelligars Apprentice (Jul 22, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> But have you played it? I mean, I have the game and once or twice tried to knock out some characters in it but I think I remember that there really weren't any mechanics beside character creation. Basically what I remember about it was that it was the one gaming book I decided that I'd better hide from my religious grandmother, that it had a lot of nice things to say about other gaming systems, and that I think I remember a percentage chance based upon your zodiac sign for being a pervert? Ah, what we won't buy when we're young.




We did TRY to play it ("it" being Fantasy Wargaming.  Anyone know you do quotes within quotes on this board?).  We generated characters, and the GM had an idea for a campaign, but it never got off the ground.  An all-to-common occurence in our group.   



			
				James Heard said:
			
		

> Tri Tac Systems game, Fringeworthy, meets the subtheme of this thread for me though. It was absolutely brilliant and I've used it's fluff over and over again without ever actually being able to make much sense of the mechanics of the game - making it the best game that has the worst system I won't ever play with. Usually when I run a Fringeworthy game I use the Interlock D10 system, the one that's used in Mekton and Cyberpunk. It's certainly not perfect, but it's less crunchy than d20 and more crunchy than Storyteller. It's the Goldilocks of gaming systems as far as I'm concerned.




Oooh, I forgot about these!  I don't consider them "the worst" because, in spite of the clunky mechanics (two hit locations in the nose!?  ) I actually had fun playing some of these.  My favorite character was (in Bureau 13: Stalking the Night Fantastic) an army chaplin who carried (among other things) a hypodermic dart gun, with hypos full of holy water, in case he ever ran into a vampire!  Yes, it was goofy, but it was fun.


----------



## Jackelope King (Jul 23, 2005)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Its obvious the nay sayers didn't give C&C a fair assessment, one of them in this thread even admitted they returned it the next day. Yep, they know what they are talking about.



Because I'd love to waste three weekends playing a game I didn't like. Yeah right.

We spent two hours prior to the game going over the rules (with the help of some overviews found here at ENWorld), making note of what C&C added and what it took away. The SEIGE engine got a big plus from us. Great idea. But then the target numbers just seemed arbitrary. Wasn't enough to put me off of the game. The Seige engine was something I'd been looking for since d20 got rolling.

But then we sat down and started making characters. I got to pick a race and a class and a prime. We were planning on playing the game in a pre-existing campaign world, and I was going to make a character descended from one of the heroes in an older game. Assassin was good (if a shameless appeal to nostalgia), but the character needed some more melee presence, so I decided I'd multiclass him to monk. But wait! No rules for multiclassing. That combined with the horrendously small amount of character creation options weren't enough to deter us. We spent some time designing an unarmed assassin class (took about 45 minutes, and it wasn't easy with little guidance from the book). Still, I wasn't willing to give up on the game. I'd been waiting for this game for too long to do that.

We got into play, and after a break about four hours in a player mentioned that he was disapointed in his character, since its abilities didn't really reflect what he wanted (he had made a thief who he wanted to play as a social dilitante as he had done with a rogue previously in 3E). Over some dinner we decided to add feats back into the game (since I assured everyone that the game was designed to allow this sort of portability). It also helped cover up the problems we all had with how little character customization the rules allowed (short of designing a new class every time you get a new character idea).

When we got back into it, we got into a nice-sized melee in a tavern and the game just started to break down. The thief was trying to get behind the counter of the tavern for cover and made a dexterity check to do so (high stat and a prime), which he did easily. The human knight then said he wanted to do the same. The CK said he couldn't, but the knight said that he had dexterity as his prime (for being human), and thus should be allowed to do the same action as the thief. The game ground to a halt for a few minutes while the CK explained why he didn't think a knight should be able to move like that and questioned why the knight had dexterity as a prime. The knight replied that he wanted to be a master rider, and ride is a dexterity skill in 3E.

The argument went nowhere, and the knight reluctantly agreed to the CK's ruling, though he then requested permission to change his prime from dexterity (since it was useless to a knight in the CK's mind). The game continued, with more little rules inconsistancies and inadequacies cropping up. The mage tried to polymorph himself into a giant but noticed that the monster didn't have the abilities mentioned in the spell, so we spent a few minutes reverse-engineering the entry to get the correct stats. The knight tried to jump a fence with his horse, but we couldn't figure out what number the horse would use to make the check, and whether or not the knight could make a check to assist the horse. My big frustration came when the knight and I tried to hold ground in a hallway. Earlier, a bandit had used a strength check to hold us back while others escaped with an NPC we were after, but now the CK ruled that we could not attempt the same. With no rules on how it was done in the first place, we didn't have much of an argument, so we set back into our normal mode of trading blows ad nauseum.

That turned out to be the nail in the coffin for C&C for us. Combat was _boring_. We just sort of swung at one another until the bad guys died, then we moved over to the next bad guy and repeated the process until the fight was over. Occassionally we were allowed to do things like the thief's tumble to safety in the tavern, but generally the CK was hesitant to allow "special moves" that weren't already in the book. We patched this problem before the last encounter of the night by importing 3E's rules for tripping, grappling, disarming, etc.

When the game was over, the CK said that he'd been really frustrated by the lack of direction from the rulebook in terms of figuring out how to do certain manuevers in-game and the players were all frustrated at having to play characters who (mechanically) had nothing to do with who the characters they invisioned. There were no options for players to do anything really meaningful with character development on the mechanical end, and we enjoyed that aspect of 3E. The knight's player pointed out that after all we'd done to make the game more pallatable, we were basically playing 3E again. Nobody was having fun playing a game with such limited options and one that basically came out of the box requiring so much house-ruling to make it playable for us. Why would I want to play C&C when it didn't offer players any options and the CK nothing but frustration? To save ourselves half an hour or so of character creation time? To give the CK easier-to-read stat blocks? Not worth it. I come to a game looking to translate a character I have in my head into gameplay, and C&C staunchly refused to allow that with its boiler-plate character creation system. If I couldn't play the character I wanted, and I couldn't get the character to do what I wanted in-game, why would I bother with the game? So the next day I returned C&C to my FLGS and the next game continued the previous session with 3E rules. It took longer to recreate our characters, but we were much more satisfied with how our characters turned out and how the gameplay ran. We wanted simple gameplay, but we didn't really get it in C&C. Luckily Blue Rose filled that void pretty nicely.


----------



## buzz (Jul 23, 2005)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Synnibar is a good system.


----------



## maggot (Jul 23, 2005)

Chris Tavares said:
			
		

> Wow, five pages in and I've still got a new one.
> 
> A game I actually played, and thought was the worst: West End Game's Masterbook.
> 
> Character creation was nigh-incomprehensible, and in actual play, you took your stat, rolled 2d10, added your stat, looked the result up on a chart, which you then compared to the target number. Incredibly clunky in play, especially when you were trying to do Indiana Jones.




Actually, you rolled 2d10, looked it up on a chart, and then added your stat.  It was based on Torg, where you rolled 1d20, looked it up on a chart, and then added your stat.  I'm not sure why they decided to use two dice instead of one when they made Masterbook.  And I always had the sneaking suspicion in Torg that the "look it up on the chart" part was unnecessary.  Along comes D&D 3E, and you get roll 1d20 and add your stat.  Brilliant.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jul 23, 2005)

maggot said:
			
		

> Actually, you rolled 2d10, looked it up on a chart, and then added your stat.  It was based on Torg, where you rolled 1d20, looked it up on a chart, and then added your stat.  I'm not sure why they decided to use two dice instead of one when they made Masterbook.  And I always had the sneaking suspicion in Torg that the "look it up on the chart" part was unnecessary.  Along comes D&D 3E, and you get roll 1d20 and add your stat.  Brilliant.




They did that because it gave you a bell curve.  You were much more likely to do something averagely (rolling a 10-11) than you were to do something really well or really poorly (rolling a 2 or a 20).  A good change.

DS


----------



## Turjan (Jul 23, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Assassin was good (if a shameless appeal to nostalgia), but the character needed some more melee presence, so I decided I'd multiclass him to monk. But wait! No rules for multiclassing.



If you try to play a game with the rules from a different game, then I don't really see a point in complaining . You try to emulate specific D&D3E characters with D&D3E means. That cannot go well.



> The thief was trying to get behind the counter of the tavern for cover and made a dexterity check to do so (high stat and a prime), which he did easily. The human knight then said he wanted to do the same. The CK said he couldn't, but the knight said that he had dexterity as his prime (for being human), and thus should be allowed to do the same action as the thief. The game ground to a halt for a few minutes while the CK explained why he didn't think a knight should be able to move like that and questioned why the knight had dexterity as a prime.
> 
> The argument went nowhere, and the knight reluctantly agreed to the CK's ruling, though he then requested permission to change his prime from dexterity (since it was useless to a knight in the CK's mind).




This and the next example are more a showcase for bad DMing. If a manoeuvre just asks for an ability check, why not let him do it? And your next example is even more blatant. An enemy is allowed a strength check for holding back a character, and none of the PCs is? Did it never come to your mind to keep the C&C book and bring the GM back to the shop ?

Hmm... I'd never thought I'd defend C&C one day. It's not even my cup of tea .


----------



## Ourph (Jul 23, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> This statement shows an almost utter lack of understanding of the system that you play (I *assume*), 3.x D&D, as it relates to C&C.




Well, you know what they say about *assu*ming, right?

Not only is your assumption wrong, it's about 180 degrees from the actual truth.  It also shows pretty obviously that you completely failed to read the original comment before replying to it.  C&C does hold onto numerous AD&Disms and does add things that were never included in OAD&D.  If you don't like the fact that I'm unappreciative of those additions, fine.  Sue me.  It doesn't mean I lack understanding.



> C&C has NO clunky addons, if anything it removes rules from the 3.x scheme.




Where did I say that?  Where did I mention 3e in my post?  Oh wait, I forgot - you're replying to your assumptions.  Not to me.  Never mind.

To clarify, I never said C&C adds anything to D&D 3e, I said it holds onto numerous AD&Disms (as in original AD&D aka 1e) and adds a bunch of clunky stuff in addition.  

I know that every person who doesn't like C&C and actually dares to voice that opinion on the intarweb *MUST* be brought before the Crusader Inquisition and punished for their insolence, but maybe you should actually read and comprehend the comments before you start heating up the pokers and sharpening the spikes on Ye Olde Iron Maiden.  You know, just to make sure you're convincting me of the correct offense.



> C&C is so close to D&D 3.x that it seems almost ridiculous to say one is great and the other is one of the most horrible systems you ever played (although to prefer one greatly over the other is expected).




What the f.......?  Yeah, that's me....a foaming-at-the-mouth fanboy of D&D 3e. [insert sarcastic  emoticon here]

Is this a joke?  Really....tell me.  This totally has to be a joke, right?



> *DID* you play it, or skim it at the bookstore?




I did both at the bookstore (or "gamestore" to be more accurate) FYI.  Though "skim" isn't as accurate as saying I sat, reading the book and scratching my head for about an hour, thinking to myself "Now, why would I pay money for this crap again?".  I also played in two demo sessions at the store because they were free and run by a decent GM.  It was only two because the guy decided he didn't like C&C and started running a d20 Star Wars game instead.

I didn't actually buy the book though.  Which I understand, in the world of C&C Crusader-dom, completely eliminates any rights I might have to express an opinion on the game.  Again, sue me!


----------



## Baron Opal (Jul 23, 2005)

Well of Souls

Cool cosmographic generator, non-existant character generation and reasons to adventure.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 23, 2005)

Ourph,

Jackalope King and his group gave C&C a decent chance. I don't see how you can think you did because you spent a whole hour trying to figure it out. I spent way more time than that trying to figure out 3.0 when it came out, heck, I spent weeks reading and re-reading and then playtesting and memorizing the new terminology and acronyms. 

C&C doesn't even have all of its rule books out yet, and you gave it an hour. I'm supposed to give your opinion credibility for what reason? I wouldn't give your opinion credibility for any game system you put so little effort into figuring out. 

Then you go off like that?  The beginning of this thread put forth the criteria of playing a game in order to pass judgement on it, you don't meet the criteria.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Jul 23, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> This is my numero uno on the worst of the worst list.  Bad art, bad rules....just all around bad.  And this is from someone who actually liked the 80's TV series, so it's not a distaste with the genre.  It's also not that the rules were particularly clunky or complex in comparison to some other systems of its era, it's that the rules completely failed to facilitate the pulp-action feel that a Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon/Space Ranger-type game should have, like trying to play a wire-fu RPG using the rules from Call of Cthulhu.




Yeah!  Setting aside the Richard Scarry artwork that was truly terrible, I watched the TV show, bought the first trilogy, wanted a good hard sci-fi game and still will occasionally wake up twitching at night ...


----------



## Devall2000 (Jul 23, 2005)

Tell me how Daredevil could have beaten the Hulk in the Marvel Superheroes Roleplaying Game?  He didn't have the strength to get through the Hulk's body armor.  The only way I can think of is if he threw his club/cane at him and got a stun or kill(if applicable).  Even then, I don't think he could get through the body armor.

Also, Spider-man beat Firelord in the comics.  It doesn't look like there's anyway for him to do it in the game.  Granted, I would need to look at it closely.  I'm going on old memory here.

-Jamie


----------



## Turjan (Jul 23, 2005)

Treebore said:
			
		

> The beginning of this thread put forth the criteria of playing a game in order to pass judgement on it, you don't meet the criteria.



He said he played two sessions. Perhaps, you misread that .


----------



## Treebore (Jul 23, 2005)

Actually I didn't feel the need to read that far.


----------



## TheGM (Jul 23, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Oh, just noticed that you are new here. In case you did not realize it, I do have a VERY strong bias for RM, and an even bigger one for a game called HARP (both published by Iron Crown Enterprises.... the company I work for )




Okay, maybe we should take this offline, but why does HARP feel like a poorly done "RM Light"? (poorly done as in "not light", not poorly done as in "sucks") Is this by design?


----------



## TheGM (Jul 23, 2005)

maggot said:
			
		

> The system I enjoyed the least is GURPS. Whether it's a bad system or not, I don't know, but it does not fit what I want out of role-playing.




I'll second that. I've played several of the games that have already been dissed here, and I'd happily play any of them again if I didn't have to play GURPS.

Of course, their stuff is better researched than most, so I do use some of it for reference.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 23, 2005)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Actually I didn't feel the need to read that far.




Wow!  Just......wow!

I had a rather witty and biting reply I was going to post in response to your comments .... but I think this pretty much says it all.

Thanks, you saved me a lot of typing.


----------



## Serendipity (Jul 23, 2005)

Worst of the worst would be Enforcers - this teeny tiny microprint supers game that stole VAST chunks out of Superhero 2044 and then glommed the worst parts of HERO, Villains and Vigilantes into this unweildy beast of a "game system" - and the setting was pure hokum.
We destroyed that thing.
Runners up would include:
all LARPS,
GURPS,
Third Ed. Gamma World (just.....ewwww)
most anything put out by TSR *except* D&D for that matter (post, say 1981)
The FASA Star Trek RPG
.... surely there are more.


----------



## Yalius (Jul 23, 2005)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Played?  Absolutely, with 100% certainty I'll say *Powers & Perils* from Avalon Hill.  The experience system was horrible.




YES YES YES YES YES! I still have this one on my game shelf. The rule books were organized in sections like 3.4.12.12.2. Remember also, you had different experience levels for every single spell you had, every single weapon, and had sliding attribute scales so what you rolled wasn't necessarily what your actual attribute was at any given time.


----------



## Andor (Jul 23, 2005)

I've played a lot of the Games mentioned here. 

I'm a little baffled by the Star Wars d6 hate. I think it modeled the movies a lot better than the d20 version does. I played it for years and had a blast.

Amber _demands_ a good GM, otherwise it must fail utterly.

Worst game I've played I think does have to go to Role (aka chart) master. I'm sorry guys, while it had it's moments I primarily recall that my character would routinely KILL HIMSELF while trying to cast spells on his class list. 

Worst game I've read might have to go to Kult for having the most revoltingly depressing setting I've ever had the misfortune to be exposed to.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jul 23, 2005)

Jackalope King:

I appreciate you didn't like C&C, but your post displayed so many assumptions fundamentally alien to my conception of what good gaming is that I can't help but wonder why you thought you'd like C&C in the first place.

In any event, I'd like to quibble with part of your criticisms- your GM's inability to handle a rules-light system isn't a very convincing indictment of that system. I mean, what the heck was that stuff about knights not being able to move like thieves? Or being unable to handle a stunt with a horse? I mean, from your descriptions, he was clearly incompetent, and badly so. A GM who couldn't handle using Strength to hold back attackers would be one whose table I would not return to.

I think the key point is that he felt it somehow necessary to import rules for tripping, disarming, etc, and was uncomfortable departing from the book. That, to me, is completely ridiculous. Why would you need rules for disarming? A dexterity check, perhaps opposed by the opponent. Tripping? A Dexterity check, perhaps opposed by the Opponent...

And, I mean, really? Thieves can dodge, but Knights can not? Why would that ever make sense?

As for 'small amount of character creation options', I would argue that C&C has exactly the same number of character creation options virtually every other RPG has ever had.

As for 'boring combat', combat is about as interesting as you make it...

Yargh. In any event, I don't think C&C is the game for you or your GM, but I don't think it is due to C&C being a bad game. Just one ill-suited to your style of play.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 23, 2005)

I am surprised that this thread managed to get past 5 pages before a 'C&C fight' broke out.  But of course it couldn't last forever...

Regarding:



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> ...
> We got into play, and after a break about four hours in a player mentioned that he was disapointed in his character, since its abilities didn't really reflect what he wanted (he had made a thief who he wanted to play as a social dilitante as he had done with a rogue previously in 3E). ...




This would actually be extremely easy -- just give the thief a charisma 'prime'.

More generally, I agree with Turjan's comment:



			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> ... This and the next example are more a showcase for bad DMing. If a manoeuvre just asks for an ability check, why not let him do it? And your next example is even more blatant. An enemy is allowed a strength check for holding back a character, and none of the PCs is? Did it never come to your mind to keep the C&C book and bring the GM back to the shop ? ...




I mean, this is kinda ridiculous:



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> ...
> ... Occassionally we were allowed to do things like the thief's tumble to safety in the tavern, but generally the CK was hesitant to allow "special moves" that weren't already in the book. We patched this problem before the last encounter of the night by importing 3E's rules for tripping, grappling, disarming, etc.
> 
> When the game was over, the CK said that he'd been really frustrated by the lack of direction from the rulebook  ....




It is clear that the CK in question simply does not understand the _whole point_ of C&C.  

No game system can guarantee good GM'ing.


----------



## Tetsubo (Jul 23, 2005)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Well of Souls
> 
> Cool cosmographic generator, non-existant character generation and reasons to adventure.




I completely forgot about that game! I actually own a copy. I've read it once and never looked at it again...


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 23, 2005)

maggot said:
			
		

> The system I enjoyed the least is GURPS.  Whether it's a bad system or not, I don't know, but it does not fit what I want out of role-playing.




It's not that bad. The core mechanics, as condensed in GURPS Lite, are actually pretty simple (and since the whole thing is only 32 pages long, it better had be).

The problem is that with the full rule set, you can do pretty much anything. And inexperienced GURPS GMs will promptly attempt to do _everything_ with it. Couple that with inexperienced GURPS _players_, and you have a recipe for disaster.

My standard advice for starting with GURPS is the following:

Pick a relatively simple campaign world for starting out with GURPS - and with "simple", I mean relatively low-powered characters from a limited number of backgrounds with only a limited number of "special powers". Generic low-powered fantasy works well. So does a modern-day setting.

Start with GURPS Lite, and give a copy each to your players. Then comb through the GURPS 4E Basic Set and copy the parts that you need for your campaign - and _only_ the parts that you need. Ignore all those other advantages and disadvantages and skills, no matter how cool they might seem. The same goes for any optional combat and environment rules. Remember:

All of these rules are optional!

Not just "optional" in the sense of "you can simply ignore any rules in the rule books", because that's standard for *all* RPGs. They are "optional" in the sense that the rule system works just fine without them.

Now start the campaign, and you and your players should be able to learn and become comfortable with the system in no time. And _then_ you can introduce all the other stuff - hit locations, new combat maneuvers, cool new powers, and so on. But don't try it before that point because it will just overwhelm everyone - both the players and the GM.

And I am speaking from experience here. I tried to introduce my group to GURPS once, and brought a half-dozen books to character creation. It only ended up confusing everyone and caused several players to develop a lasting dislike of the system.

But several years later, I managed to convince my group to try out GURPS again, this time for a Warhammer campaign. This time, I prepared and resisted the temptation to introduce all those cool additional rules except for the absolute minimum neccessary for starting the campaign. And lo! and behold! It worked like a charm! Everyone became used to the system and started to like it, even those who disliked it the last time. And though I have since moved away from them, they have started new GURPS campaigns of their own...

To sum it up: Even if you have had bad experiences with GURPS in the past, it might be worth it to give the system another look...


----------



## Tetsubo (Jul 23, 2005)

Triskaidekafile said:
			
		

> Worst of the worst would be Enforcers - this teeny tiny microprint supers game that stole VAST chunks out of Superhero 2044 and then glommed the worst parts of HERO, Villains and Vigilantes into this unweildy beast of a "game system" - and the setting was pure hokum.
> We destroyed that thing.
> Runners up would include:
> all LARPS,
> ...




I looked at Enforcers at one point and debated buying it. Guess I'm glad that I didn't.

I'm not a fan of LARPS either. But I realize that they fill a role in some peoples lives. I just write them off as not my cup of tea. Of course I was active in the SCA at one time... 

I still have very found memories of 3rd Edition Gamma World. I ran a three year campaign using that set of rules. Though I did tack on the TMNT character creation system for making mutant animals. As I said earlier, the new After The Bomb game is rather nice. Even if it does use Palladiums rules...


----------



## KenM (Jul 23, 2005)

I have to put in another vote for the old Marvel super heroes RPG. The stats were not numbers, they were adjetives. 

  STR: Amazing  DEX: Incredible. is Amazing better then incredible?


----------



## Rasyr (Jul 23, 2005)

TheGM said:
			
		

> Okay, maybe we should take this offline, but why does HARP feel like a poorly done "RM Light"? (poorly done as in "not light", not poorly done as in "sucks") Is this by design?



I responded in a new thread -- http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=141129


----------



## Treebore (Jul 23, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Wow!  Just......wow!
> 
> I had a rather witty and biting reply I was going to post in response to your comments .... but I think this pretty much says it all.
> 
> Thanks, you saved me a lot of typing.




Biting? Probably. Witty? I would have been surprised. So, since I didn't feel the need to read your whole post, now you get a idea of why I find your opinion laughable for giving it an hour of head scratching to figure it out. Playtested it? If you playtested it with the same amount of effort you gave to reading it, I'm still not impressed. BTW, I did read your whole post, how do you think I know how you went off if I didn't.

You get all uppity when you think your whole opinion isn't read and attempted to be understood, but you can't even give a game system the same amount of consideration, just condemn it without a fair shake.


I know C&C isn't for everyone, but I don't like people condeming a game when it might keep other people from giving it a look see, when that opinion they might follow is so poorly thought out and tested.

C&C is a game to try if you are "tired" of the complexity of 3.5. If you aren't tired of 3.5, then there is no reason to go play C&C. C&C is only of use to you if you want a system than is lighter in the rules that you can still base a roleplaying game around and have based in a fanatasy setting. If you like 3.5 there is absolutely no reason to use or try anything else that is so similar. 

But to bad mouth it without giving it a "real" try out? Plus to have no real need or desire to try something other than 3.5? You don't even understand why people would try other systems.


Now, back to the original purpose of this thread. 

GURPS. I have long bought the supplements, because they are great fluff and are useful for other genres, especially Traveller, in my case. I only recently sat down and tried out their new edition. The GM was very knowledgeable and had lots of experience with GURPS, and I have to say I enjoyed the system as well as the game/campaign. I saw lots of similarities to D&D 3.5 and realized that WOTC ripped a lot of ideas from GURPS, just like I always have for my games. I do prefer the d20 mechanic over the GURPS mechanic, but the GURPS mechanic does work, and it works well.

So if I was invited to play GURPS I would, if I felt the GM was a good one.


----------



## Devall2000 (Jul 23, 2005)

I can see how some people might be aggravated by the Marvel Super Heroes RPG.  However, it was a fairly simple game.  While the stats were adjectives, there were numerical values associated with them as well.  I, myself, never had a problem with it.  

I think some of the powers are a lot better than others(ex. body armor).  Anybody that had a body armor of remarkable (30) or better didn't have to worry about being hurt by anyone that didn't have superhuman strength.  Also, you needed to assign your stats yourself rather than follow their system of rolling up each one and keeping your roll.  Who wants to keep a character with a bad strength score?!

As far as it being just as easy to hit spider-man as the hulk, you could use evasion.  However, the evasion rules are clunky.

-Jamie


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Jul 23, 2005)

Never made it out of character creation in MERP. I don't mind the detail, but this was getting ridiculous. If it's flexible, it should have character points. Quit rolling on tables.

The Palladium system. I've played RIFTS, TMNT, Robotech, Ninjas and Superspies. It was very chic to run TMNT in my gaming group for awhile, and had some good times, but those were in spite of the system. Good game worlds, though someone once reminded me that part of the fun was the munchkin rules set (this was after he tried getting his gaming group to run GURPS Rifts, and they shot it down because it was a consistent, non-munchkin rules set).

Shadowrun 1e. The combat was so bad for that, we had to use Palladium rules or, when enough of us picked up the game, GURPS. Another great setting, however.

Vampire the Masquerade 1e. They've improved the rules, but this has to be the most wanker setting of all time. Whining about being condemned to darkness does not a good game make. Later versions have the rules set Shadowrun should be using now, or at least a variation of it -- the basics are similar.

I'll refrain from dumping on AD&D 1e and 2e, since I did have some good times with those and it took awhile for the rules to really become creaky -- it was mostly the add ons that did it. Still, I had to give up AD&D 2e when I started writing Active Defense rules -- I figured if I wanted D&D to be like GURPS, I was better off running GURPS. So I ran GURPS.


----------



## Jackelope King (Jul 23, 2005)

> This would actually be extremely easy -- just give the thief a charisma 'prime'.



He did. He had dexterity and charisma as his primes (I honestly forget the third one his thief had, but I don't think it came up in play). The problem was that the mage (who did not have charisma as a prime) had charisma as a great charisma score, so even with the two characters having different primes, the mage's charisma score was consistantly high enough to make it just almost as easy for him to meet the same tasks as the thief without even having charisma as a prime.


> More generally, I agree with Turjan's comment



I do to a point as well myself, but here's the thing of it: I hadn't seen this guy get so tripped up with a system before this! This is someone who had pulled an old edition of Traveler out of his uncle's basement, thumbed through the book on his car ride back, and ran a month-long game in it with no problem. This is someone who borrowed the Blue Rose book from me for an hour at work and then ran us through a one-off high-seas adventure. This session of C&C was uncharacteristic for him, and according to him, it was the applications of the SEIGE engine that made it difficult for him. It wasn't just unclear: it was downright vague. In standard d20 he has a set of relatively pre-defined skills to fall back on and say, "Oh you want to do grab the tapestry and run along the wall? Make a climb check." In C&C you have to sit back and say, "Is it more strength or dexterity? Climb is pretty strength-based, but what about scambering along the wall like this? What kind of number should the check be? Is it easier or harder than the standard 12/18? Should I allow any modifies because it fits the character's specialties?" Since C&C does not specify a character's talents, it forces the CK to make assumptions on what he believes the character can and cannot do, and when the CK's view clashes with the player's view and there are no clear rules to adjudicate the matter, there's tension. Should the CK's view of the character be supreme because he's the CK, or should the player's, since he's the one who created and plays the character to begin with? There must've been some fundamental problem with the game itself which would've thrown him off like this.


> It is clear that the CK in question simply does not understand the _whole point_ of C&C.



Apparently not. I bought the game and encouraged him to run it based on what I had heard: that it was rules-lite d20, that it would streamline much of gameplay and let us get more into our sessions. It soon became clear that we had been incorrect in our assumption that it was rules-lite d20: it was more like pared-down d20 with AD&Disms thrown in for nostalgia purposes. The CK and I were the only two members of the group who had played a significant amount of 2E, and we were also the only ones who ever played a Rules Cyclopedia Campaign. We were quite familiar with the nostalgic bits thrown in, but we were anything but happy to see that sort of stuff. We didn't care that TLG had remembered initiative on a d10: we cared about TLG giving us rules-lite d20, plain and simple. And they almost did. I just can't fathom why they decided AD&Dism were "rules-lite".


> No game system can guarantee good GM'ing.



Truth be told. However, this is the second system I've ever played which seems to encourage bad GM'ing (Palladium still blows C&C out of the water in this regard), and I know that a few other people in my group who occassionally GM games wouldn't have a prayer with C&C. They can manage 3E fairly well, but they're not the type who could come up with making rulings on their feet. It should've been a great game for the CK, but for some reason it definitely wasn't. Knowing the guy, I really can't blame him for it (though since those out there in Internet-Land aren't as familiar with the guy as I am, I can understand the natural reaction to assume I'm off my rocker and blame him anyway). So the only variable left unaccounted for is the system, leaving me to blame the system.

And note that bad GM'ing in this instance was only half the problem. The other problem was a definite lack of player options (both during character creation and during gameplay), and just comparing the same character I made in Blue Rose to the character sheet from C&C, I can tell that my Expert is much closer to what I imagined my character to be than my custom Assassin.

However, I've derailed this discussion enough, and appologize for doing so. I normally don't like to rant about games I dislike so much since it causes reactions like this from folks who do enjoy the game. So again, my appologies for dragging this so far off-track.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jul 23, 2005)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Bring on the Synnibar!




First response--impressive!

But "Fantasy Wargaming" by Bruce Galloway is the worst ever.  I quote from the first page of Character Creation:



			
				Bruce Galloway said:
			
		

> Those wishing to give their character authentic medieval attributes may then wish to modify these variable characteristics to take account of astrological influences. (emphasis added)



 :rollseyes:


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jul 23, 2005)

Zelligars Apprentice said:
			
		

> "Honorable" mention goes to another obscure '80s game called *Fantasy Wargaming*.  Horrible mechanics, but it had some decent information about feudalism, and it is the only game I have seen which has game statistics for both God (as in, the Christian God) and The Devil.  It also had a system for determining what happens to your character's soul after they died!  That is, whether they go to Heaven or Hell or spend some time in Purgatory!  Those things give it some points for audacity, if nothing else.





Hey, now that I'm wading through this thread, I see someone else mentioned "Fantasy Wargaming," too.

We should get together and run a game at the next EN Gameday!


----------



## Ourph (Jul 23, 2005)

Treebore said:
			
		

> So, since I didn't feel the need to read your whole post, now you get a idea of why I find your opinion laughable for giving it an hour of head scratching to figure it out.



No, now I get an idea of how exactly right I was about C&C fanboys not even pausing to finish reading the post before attacking when they see someone uttering the blasphemy of saying they don't like the one-true-game.  After all, the Crusader Inquisition doesn't need no stinking facts!  The chief weapons of the Crusader Inquisition are surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical inability to hear criticism without going off the deep end and nice red uniforms.  Facts just get in the way.



> Playtested it? If you playtested it with the same amount of effort you gave to reading it, I'm still not impressed. BTW, I did read your whole post, how do you think I know how you went off if I didn't.



You're the one who said you didn't read the whole thing.  Should I just step back and let you have this argument with yourself?  

As for my reading ability, I don't know how much verbage you can get through in an hour, but for me that was plenty of time to get through most of the book (minus the spell descriptions of course).  There's not really that much to digest about C&C (it is, after all, supposed to be rules-*LITE*, yes?).  An hour was certainly enough for me to be able to handle generating a character and playing in a game without any problems.

I didn't even spend that much time staring at the art (despite the fact that it was arguably the most original and well-done aspect of the whole book).



> You get all uppity when you think your whole opinion isn't read and attempted to be understood, but you can't even give a game system the same amount of consideration, just condemn it without a fair shake.



Hey, if the guy had kept running the game, I'd have been glad to play a few more sessions.  If you want, I can send you his address and you can go punch him in the nose or something if it will make you feel better about the whole thing.

BTW - It should take, at most, 5 minutes to read my original post (even for people whose lips move when they read), I devoted approximately 10 hours to giving C&C a "fair shake".  That was more than enough time to form the ONE opinion I've expressed on the game; namely - it's one of the worst games I've ever played.



> I know C&C isn't for everyone, but I don't like people condeming a game when it might keep other people from giving it a look see, when that opinion they might follow is so poorly thought out and tested.



This would be truly annoying if it weren't so incredibly funny.

Hey everyone, look at me!  My power and influence over others is so astounding I can choose people's games for them simply by saying what I do and don't like.

*ALL YOUR BRAINS ARE BELONG TO ME!!!* 

Now if I'd only choose to use my powers for good instead of evil!   

BTW - What makes this so funny is that you're telling me that 10 hours of playtime and a good hour of reading the actual rules makes for a "poorly thought out and tested" opinion, and then in this next section you go on to make completely unfounded assumptions about my opinions, likes, dislikes and other game-related experiences (which are completely erroneous I might add) with absolutely no foundation for those opinions.  Nice illustration of irony!



> C&C is a game to try if you are "tired" of the complexity of 3.5.



Yep.  That's me.



> If you aren't tired of 3.5, then there is no reason to go play C&C.



Nope.  Not me.



> C&C is only of use to you if you want a system than is lighter in the rules that you can still base a roleplaying game around and have based in a fanatasy setting.



Yep, me again.



> If you like 3.5 there is absolutely no reason to use or try anything else that is so similar.



Maybe my sarcasm earlier didn't come through (or maybe you didn't bother to read that part as well).  To be clear ..... I don't particularly like D&D 3e because I feel it's overly complex.  I've spent some time looking around at rules-liter options and C&C was under consideration specifically because it promised to be similar but less complex.

I realize that logic and reason and reality aren't really important once the Crusader Inquisition gets their hooks into me, but I think the facts at least deserve a fair airing before I'm flayed alive for my heresies.



> But to bad mouth it without giving it a "real" try out? Plus to have no real need or desire to try something other than 3.5? You don't even understand why people would try other systems.



       

For the record - this is totally getting printed out and circulated amongst my gaming friends.  The "guy who won't play D&D" aka "the guy who is always trying to get us to play some wierd non-D&D game" getting flamed for being a die-hard 3.5e fanboy should be worth at least one Mountain Dew spewed through the nose incident.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 23, 2005)

I guess I'm amused, but not surprised, that there aren't really any devotees of the majority of the "Worst. Game. EVAR!" nominees in here, declaiming about how they are really the best thing since sliced bread ...

Except for the C&C crowd.

Heck, the most strident opposition apart from them is the RM delegation - and even they have conceded points like, "Yeah, character creation is a pain."

As for me, the worst game I've ever played?

I think I'm going to have to agree with RoleMaster, but not because of any inherent problems with the system.  My first - and only - RM character was a pregenerated one, so I missed what is apparently a major pitfall of the system.  No, my problem with it was that, looking at my character sheet, I had a list of about 100 different abilities - and didn't really know what any of them did or how to use them.

I think, given time, I might have grown more comfortable with the system and enjoyed it more.

Oh, except for the fact that, in one of my first combats, I think I cut off my own hand.  That was a bit of a downer.  

EDIT:

Oh, and Ourph makes me laugh.    Keep fighting the good fight, brother!  Any luck finding a more-fitting system?  Burning Wheel's getting some good reviews.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Oh, and Ourph makes me laugh.    Keep fighting the good fight, brother!  Any luck finding a more-fitting system?  Burning Wheel's getting some good reviews.




WHFRPv2 is doing us proud so far, but I'm also looking forward to getting Riddle of Steel in the mail sometime next week.


----------



## HellHound (Jul 23, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> WHFRPv2 is doing us proud so far, but I'm also looking forward to getting Riddle of Steel in the mail sometime next week.




I'm not going to rag on any in-print systems in this discussion, because I know that it will only make me enemies (or at least make me less loved), but I will step forward and say that I really fell in love with WHFRP2.

REALLY.

Chris managed to seriously improve this game from its roots, and has me 100% hooked on it. I'm -very- excited for the release of WH40KRP


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I guess I'm amused, but not surprised, that there aren't really any devotees of the majority of the "Worst. Game. EVAR!" nominees in here, declaiming about how they are really the best thing since sliced bread ...
> 
> Except for the C&C crowd.




Well, to be fair, GURPS _was_ mentioned a couple of times and I _did_ defend it...


----------



## Turjan (Jul 23, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, GURPS _was_ mentioned a couple of times and I _did_ defend it...



Even Synnibarr has its fan in this thread . But only the C&C discussion got heated .


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jul 23, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, GURPS _was_ mentioned a couple of times and I _did_ defend it...




I would go so far as to say that, while GURPs is certainly not for everyone, it is an excellent game. As far as I can tell (and from my brief GURPs gaming experiences), it does what it sets out to do very well.

It does have flaws that aren't so easy to assign to personal preference- it does have a steep learning curve, not all the optional rules are, well, good, etc, but GURPs is one of those games I want to like, because I can see doing a lot of neat things with it.

I'd post a similiar defense of C&C. There are some genuine flaws, but I think that if you're the type of person who both wants to get the "Classic D&D experience" and can handle a rules-light game, C&C is perfect, or nearly so.

Most of Jackalope King's disgruntlements were with things I see as _virtues_ of C&C. What one man calls "vague" I might call "fast and flexible", etc etc.

For these reasons, I don't think either game belong on this thread. I mean, playing C&C and then saying there weren't enough rules is kind of like playing Call of Cthulhu and complaining about the steady degradation of mental health, or playing Tekumel when you dislike extremely involved setting background, or playing Traveller when you have a morbid phobia of space...


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 23, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> He did. He had dexterity and charisma as his primes (I honestly forget the third one his thief had, but I don't think it came up in play). The problem was that the mage (who did not have charisma as a prime) had charisma as a great charisma score, so even with the two characters having different primes, the mage's charisma score was consistantly high enough to make it just almost as easy for him to meet the same tasks as the thief without even having charisma as a prime. ...




This makes no sense.  A prime gives a PC the equivalent of a +6 bonus.  So even if the thief had an average charisma, and the wizard had an 18 charisma, the the thief would still have a full +3 more to charisma checks than the thief (+6 versus +3).



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> ...  In standard d20 he has a set of relatively pre-defined skills to fall back on and say, "Oh you want to do grab the tapestry and run along the wall? Make a climb check." In C&C you have to sit back and say, "Is it more strength or dexterity? Climb is pretty strength-based, but what about scambering along the wall like this? What kind of number should the check be? Is it easier or harder than the standard 12/18? Should I allow any modifies because it fits the character's specialties?" ...




Well I'm surprised that any decent GM would have such a hard time making these kinds of judgements when running a game (regardless of the system).  As I said already, no rules can guarantee good GM'ing.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> ... There must've been some fundamental problem with the game itself which would've thrown him off like this. ...




No.  The problem is that the GM is obviously ill-suited to run this kind of game -- he obviously needs a lot of guidance in order to make basic decisions.

Lots of other GMs do *not* have the problems you describe with C&C.  So no, your poor experience is *not* a result of some kind of 'fundamental problem' with the game itself.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> ... we cared about TLG giving us rules-lite d20, plain and simple. And they almost did. I just can't fathom why they decided AD&Dism were "rules-lite"....




Well, you clearly did not understand the whole purpose of C&C.  It was meant to recapture a lot of 'old school' D&D-isms.  If that is not your cup of tea, so be it -- it doesn't mean that those features don't appeal to other gamers, or that they render the game 'bad'.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> ... Truth be told. However, this is the second system I've ever played which seems to encourage bad GM'ing...




Please.  This is complete rubbish.  The system does not 'encourage bad GM'ing'.  And in fact, many people have found the game to encourage *good* GM'ing (by using fewer, more general rules mechanics -- and thereby requiring less 'rules checking' and prep work, which in turn allows for more focus on roleplaying and story elements during the game).

Your basic mistake here is making a sweeping generalization based on your own (rather badly GM'ed) experience.  

While C&C may not suit *every* GM and gaming group, it does work for many GMs and groups -- and thus is not an 'intrinsically flawed' system.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> ... So the only variable left unaccounted for is the system, leaving me to blame the system....




Again, you're making an unwarranted generalization based on your own experience.  The fact that many other GMs have had extremely positive experiences with the game indicate that your conclusion is unjustified.

It would be more accurate to say that the system is clearly one that did not suit your GM's style and abilities.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> ... I normally don't like to rant about games I dislike so much since it causes reactions like this from folks who do enjoy the game. So again, my appologies for dragging this so far off-track.




It certainly doesn't bother me that you don't like C&C.  It is obviously not a game that appeals to everyone.

What I *do* object to you is your spurious claim that there is something 'fundamentally wrong' with the rules simply because your GM didn't know how to run it.


----------



## maggot (Jul 23, 2005)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> To sum it up: Even if you have had bad experiences with GURPS in the past, it might be worth it to give the system another look...




I have a friend that loves GURPS.  He ran various GURPS games for years, and finally I had to say "no more."  Life is too short to give second chances to a game I know I don't enjoy.  And there are far too many games out I haven't even given a first chance.


----------



## maggot (Jul 23, 2005)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> They did that because it gave you a bell curve.  You were much more likely to do something averagely (rolling a 10-11) than you were to do something really well or really poorly (rolling a 2 or a 20).  A good change




(About change from Torg to Masterbook.)  I would agree if it weren't for the fact that you take the number rolled and look it up on a table.  Having to add two dice and then look it up on a table for a bonus to add to a skill is too much work for no gain.  The bell curve could be built into the table with a flat die roll.  Either remove the table or roll only one die.  D&D does both, and that is fine with me, but I know it irks some other people.  I also love Torg, which does the one die and a table thing.  I've seen house systems that use two dice and that works too.  But two dice and a table is too much.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 23, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> ...
> I realize that logic and reason and reality aren't really important once the Crusader Inquisition gets their hooks into me, but I think the facts at least deserve a fair airing before I'm flayed alive for my heresies...




Well, I get paid to teach logic ... and I like C&C.   

I know you're irritated with Treebore.  But I think it is unfair to assume that _all_ gamers who like C&C don't care about 'logic and reason'.  I've defended the game many times on these boards, and have always endeavoured to present reasons for my position.

It's not a perfect game, and I can certainly understand why it would not appeal to everyone.  But I think it accomplishes its design goals very well.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 23, 2005)

I'll probably sound like a broken record, but I've found that most games, even the 'bad ones' can be great fun with the right GM.

Some hate Rifts because of the M.D.C. or the hit above 4 rule. I've played it on and off for years. It wasn't the game system that turned me off Rifts, it was the way the company progressed with Rifts about the time of the Siege on Tolkieen.

I'm not saying a bad game system isn't harder to GM than a good one, but it's all apples and oranges as people have different taste and different games tend to handle different genres better. For example, given the choice between Hero and Gurps for a Super Hero campaign, I'd pick Hero (then when no one was looking switch to Mutants & Masterminds...)


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 23, 2005)

HellHound said:
			
		

> I'm not going to rag on any in-print systems in this discussion, because I know that it will only make me enemies (or at least make me less loved), but I will step forward and say that I really fell in love with WHFRP2.
> 
> REALLY...




Same here.  I think WFRP is amazing.

I really hope I can find a group to run it with after I move to Dublin.


----------



## strockrodan (Jul 23, 2005)

I guess I've been lucky (or unlucky maybe) as I haven't really played any bad systems.  Then again I've only played about 5 different ones.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Jul 23, 2005)

The most unattractive aspect of C&C is, well, you've probably read all of it by now.  



One of the WORST gaming experiences my group ever had was Mutants and Masterminds.  It was absolutely horrible.  Players left the table with very hard feelings toward the system, vowing never to play "that (explitive explitive explitive)" again, etc.  I'll say that part of it was my fault, as the GM, for not understanding how things would quite work with one another, how situations would play out, which created many situations that turned the players off and left some imbalances.  The balance and ease-of-approach of M&M is something the designers have said they wanted to work on, and have tried to change for the next edition.  Because it was a common problem.

Later I figured out the system a little better, and we tried it again, loved it, and have used it as one of our major systems from that point out.  I'm just glad that the M&M fans weren't interested in lambasting me, my players, my ability, or my intelligence ... probably would have never picked up the system again. 

--fje


----------



## Treebore (Jul 23, 2005)

Ourph,

You seem to be an OK guy, baited a bit easily, but kept your composure and made some good responses. I think i would enjoy talking to you face to face. I still think you should give C&C a better look if you really are looking for something else. Using your experiences with 3.5 you can definitely add some house rules to C&C and make it into something you would enjoy better than 3.5. Which is part of why C&C is designed the way it is, they want you to able to import ideas from other systems as easily as possible.

If you get down to it, I don't like C&C as written, but with about a page of house rules I like it a lot. Some of my house rules are pulled from 3.5, a couple from L5R, and a couple from older editions of D&D, and one from Shadowrun. Plus Akrasia, Mythusmage, and others have developed other house rules that they have shared to cover other rules issues people may have.

Another thing I like about C&C, I get to feel much more like I helped make the game what it is, or can be. I don't have to follow a bunch of rules that so many 3.5 players expect you to.



Joe G.

I feel the same way about RIFTS. IT has problems, BIG problems, but it is a very fun game to play if you do take the time to make it work (IE house rules) for you and your group, just like most games out there. Heck, even Aftermath could be a great game with some decent tweaking, just never felt the need to take the time.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 23, 2005)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> ... I'm just glad that the M&M fans weren't interested in lambasting me, my players, my ability, or my intelligence ... probably would have never picked up the system again.
> 
> --fje




It's always a mistake to make a judgement about a game's quality based on the behaviour of a few vocal fans.

I've never understood why the behaviour of people one doesn't play with (and who are not the game's designers or producers) should affect one's judgement of the game itself.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jul 23, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I'll probably sound like a broken record, but I've found that most games, even the 'bad ones' can be great fun with the right GM.




Exactly.  Synnibarr is fun when MattyHelms runs it at a Chicago Gameday.  I've played it twice in that setting and don't know if I'd ever play it in any other setting.  The scary thing about Matt is that not only did he know all of the rules pretty much by heart, he also knew the back-story justifications of everything.  He did not just read Synnibarr--he memorized it.  Truly frightening.  And a lot of fun for a four-hour game.  Of which, two hours is spent creating characters!


----------



## shadow (Jul 23, 2005)

mcrow said:
			
		

> Imagine Roleplaying




Really, I'm rather fond of the system.  Granted that it's rules intensive and combat is convoluted.  However, I like the large variety of classes and races as well as the fact that all classes are essentially skill packages.

My worst game systems are:

*Hunter: the Reckoning* I really wanted to like this system, but I couldn't.  The fact is that even powerful hunters were still able to get their a***s kicked by the lowliest vampires gave the game too much of a nihilistic feel, rather than a pulp action/horror feel that I was looking for.  
Moreover, it seemed that any points spent on background traits were completely wasted; whatever the background, all characters essentially always ended up in the same situation.  I decided to play a professor of the occult, rather than a straight combat gunslinger.  After becoming imbued, he found himself on the run, losing all ties to colleagues and the university.   The Storyteller then had the nerve to tell me all the points that I spent on the occultism skill didn't matter since my character had only researched legends, and didn't know anything about how *real* occultism worked.  So, despite my character concept and background, my character ended up being another gunslinging fighter.

*WEG Star Wars*: I loved the setting.  I loved the games that my old group played using the system, but I hated the rules.  Essentially, the bucket o' dice system guaranteed that after a certain level of skill, the number of dice you rolled got absurd (especially if you added in the extra dice for force points).  I remember combats where Jedi characters using the force would be rolling 12 or 13 dice at a time.  Also all skills defaulted to the base attributes which lended itself well to the pulpy feel of the setting (where characters could do just about anything), but led to absurd situations, such as a kid with a high dex being a better shot with a blaster than my hardened mercenary character.


----------



## Jackelope King (Jul 23, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> What I *do* object to you is your spurious claim that there is something 'fundamentally wrong' with the rules simply because your GM didn't know how to run it.



And I object to you saying my GM isn't even a decent GM, that we don't have any understanding  of the game, and that I'm making sweeping generalizations.

Let me reitterate what I've been trying to say: _my group_ has found C&C to be a poor game because _we feel_ it has a ruleset which is poorly suited to playing rules-lite d20 fantasy. _Our GM_ found the lack of guidance provided by the rules to be extremely inadequate, and this is the _first time he's ever had such a problem_ (after a year-long game of FUDGE, I sincerely doubt it's a problem with rules-lite games in general).  _We players_ found the incredibly small set of player options to be a _major turnoff_. _We_ all agreed that the appeals to nostalgia were a turn-off _for us_. _Other people will certainly disagree, and that's fine_. If it's the game for you, there's another book out there for you to get someone in your group, and I hope you have a long, successful run with it, since it clearly appeals to you and is adequate for your game, but _my group_ found the game to have an inadequate ruleset for running rules-lite d20. I am _not_ saying that everyone under the sun will hate it, but I _am_ saying that _my group_ found enough problems with it _for our game_ that it wasn't worth playing.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 23, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And I object to you saying my GM isn't even a decent GM, that we don't have any understanding  of the game, and that I'm making sweeping generalizations.
> ...




But your previous post _did_ contain sweeping generalizations about the game -- all based on your own particular experience with it.

In fact, in your last post, you repeatedly said that the rules *themselves* were at fault for your poor experience -- whereas it was painfully obvious that the rules were simply not well-suited to your group and GM (given your particular needs and interests).



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> ... _my group_ ... _we feel_ ...    _We players_ ... _We_ ... _for us_.   ... _my group_ ....




It's good to see that you've learned an important lesson here -- namely, the importance of understanding that your subjective experiences do _not_ establish universal facts.


----------



## Jackelope King (Jul 23, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> In fact, in your last post, you repeatedly said that the rules *themselves* were at fault for your poor experience -- whereas it was painfully obvious that the rules were simply not well-suited to your group and GM (given your particular needs and interests).



Well the rules weren't well-suited to our group and our GM, so for us the rules themselves _were_ at fault for us. And judging by what other people have posted elsewhere at ENWorld, my group isn't the only one to have such problems.

I'm well aware that my experiences don't translate to universal truths, but I never claimed they did. You seemed very quick to read things into my post that were not there. If I mislead you, I appologize and will try to be more clear posting in the future, but I would ask that you try to avoid reading too much into what others post.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 23, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Well the rules weren't well-suited to our group and our GM, so for us the rules themselves _were_ at fault for us. And judging by what other people have posted elsewhere at ENWorld, my group isn't the only one to have such problems....




You realize that C&C has been nominated for an ENNie award, right?   

Like many other games, there are many posters here at ENworld who quite like the system, and a number who dislike it.  Big surprise.

There are five reviews of the PHB, with an average score of 4/5 (two 3's, one 4, and two 5's).    If the rules were really unplayable, I suspect that the average score would be quite lower.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'm well aware that my experiences don't translate to universal truths, but I never claimed they did. You seemed very quick to read things into my post that were not there. If I mislead you, I appologize and will try to be more clear posting in the future, but I would ask that you try to avoid reading too much into what others post.




You kept claiming that there were _fundamental_ or _intrinsic_ problems with the rules _themselves_.  It is hard to see how I read 'too much' into what you said.  I disagreed with what you explicitly stated -- e.g. your claim that the rules _themselves_ 'encouraged bad GM'ing'.


----------



## romp (Jul 23, 2005)

ConnorSB said:
			
		

> BattleLords of the 22nd Century. Asparagusheaded psychic people, big dumb lizards with guns, Gene-humans, which are exactly like humans but with better genes, and Orian Rogues- basically fast childish humans, are ok. I can handle that. What I can't handle is the "random but enforced background quirks table" which made my character both an Intergalactic Space-ball champion, easily recognized everywhere he goes, AND a wanted criminal in seven quadrants, AND have a paralyzing fear of open spaces (spaceball is played in open vacuum...)... and also, my class was apparently "cyborg" despite the fact that I was a, uh, shapeshifting mass of ooze...



 Battle Lords of the 23rd Century ... 

ohhh  such blasphemy!   BL is a great game but there were some major balance issues with the character types, one group i played with had a major long running campaign with BL, very quirky ruleset but as long as you were light hearted about it it was fun to play ... (I went through three characters in two weeks time once, and some of those flaws could be real doozies ...


----------



## Ourph (Jul 23, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I know you're irritated with Treebore.  But I think it is unfair to assume that _all_ gamers who like C&C don't care about 'logic and reason'.



Not all gamers who like C&C are part of the Crusader Inquisition (or is that just what they want you to believe  ).



> I've defended the game many times on these boards, and have always endeavoured to present reasons for my position.



Telling people what you like about the game is great.  I've enjoyed reading your analysis and opinions about the positive aspects of the game.  But the Crusader Inquisition doesn't care about talking up the positive aspects of the game.  As far as I can see, the Crusader Inquisition's main purpose is to label anyone who wasn't involved in playtesting, hasn't bought every book and hasn't been involved in a C&C campaign since the day the PHB was released as an uninformed boob with no right to an opinion.



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> I think i would enjoy talking to you face to face.



I doubt it.    



> I still think you should give C&C a better look if you really are looking for something else. Using your experiences with 3.5 you can definitely add some house rules to C&C and make it into something you would enjoy better than 3.5. Which is part of why C&C is designed the way it is, they want you to able to import ideas from other systems as easily as possible.



As I said, I think I gave C&C a fair go.  It's not the things that C&C leaves out from 3e that bother me, it's the stuff it keeps from AD&D without any of the actual redeeming qualities of AD&D.  I know some people think the SIEGE system is mana sent from heaven, but AFAIAC and IMO it's clunky and inelegant.  Since that's pretty much the only thing C&C brings to the table as far as innovation, it really doesn't have much to offer me.

I can't see any reason to spend time or money trying to make myself like another uninspired D&D clone when there are so many other great RPGs on the market today that I could be investing my gaming time into.  I'd rather be playing the game or working on a campaign than writing and testing out houserules trying to make a (what I consider to be) pretty lackluster and mediocre attempt at game design work for me.  Why should I put in the effort trying to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse when I have talented people like Chris Pramas, CJ Carella or Jake Norwood willing to do the design work for me?

After all, it's not like I ranked C&C just below my favorite RPGs.  This is a thread about the games we feel are the worst RPGs we've ever played.  I ranked C&C as tied for 2nd place as my worst RPG experience ever for a reason and I stand by my opinion (whether it irks others who are fans of the game or not).


----------



## amethal (Jul 24, 2005)

The worst RPG I've played is MERP, and that was not too bad, so I've been lucky.   

It was appropriately grim and gritty, but there were too many tables and it wasn't heroic enough for my taste - I once had a character die whilst attempting to climb a tree, only for the GM to then "realise" (rightly or wrongly - don't know the rules well enough to tell whether it was a fudge) that the situation called for maiming instead of death.

Possibly Rolemaster would have been worse, but we never got beyond the first session (where, naturally, we only got as far as character generation, so never got to play).

d6 Star Wars is one of the best systems I've ever played, but we tended to use it as a filler, or a change of pace, so we never got much beyond starting characters. Didn't matter to us whether the game had any flaws at higher levels .... 

The advice for GMs was superb - "keep the game flowing, don't allow a character to die unless its a suitably dramatic moment, think big, challenge all the characters' skills, and never, ever let the rules get in the way of fun." I try and run my D&D campaigns in the same manner.

Similarly, Marvel Super Heroes worked great for the very short campaign we did. Who cares if some first level characters can defeat the Hulk. This is super hero roleplaying, not Forgotten Realms.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Jul 24, 2005)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I *loved* Aftermath.  I reveled in its quirkiness.  We always played 'realistic' post-apocalypse, though.  No mutants for us.



Another loving vote for Aftermath! (the ! is part of the title, btw). Both it and Morrow Project occupied way too much of my time in the early '80s.

Worst game evar? Hmmm. That's tricky. It's kind of unfair to knock Superhero 2044, as it was done so long ago. But it was pretty darn bad.

I've actually been pretty lucky over my 29 or so years of gaming...I seem to be able to smell bad games from a long ways away, and avoid them


----------



## Arpad (Jul 24, 2005)

GURPS.  Yeah, I've seen worse, but it's the worst system I've ever played.


----------



## romp (Jul 24, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Space Opera was a half finished systems. In the mustering out tables one of the benefits was that you could get any body armor "up to class 14" or something to that effect. However no place in the system did it ever actually assign ratings like that to the body armor.



Space Opera was a talisman for me while I was in school. Like one poster said earlier, I felt that the meaning of life would be unraveled if I could just decipher the rules. The "mustering-out" benefits were rife with munckin stuff, one even got a "complete ship" on mustering out... yeesh!


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jul 24, 2005)

As a side note, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call a group of rabid C&C fans a "Crusade" rather than an inquisition?

I mean, I'm just sayin'...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 24, 2005)

You know...one day Akrasia's going to post in a thread and not mention C&C at all. That day will be like the day Nightfall didn't mention SL...yet another sign the world is ending.


----------



## warlord (Jul 24, 2005)

Well this is just painfully obvious I have to say Palladium.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jul 24, 2005)

romp said:
			
		

> Space Opera was a talisman for me while I was in school. Like one poster said earlier, I felt that the meaning of life would be unraveled if I could just decipher the rules. The "mustering-out" benefits were rife with munckin stuff, one even got a "complete ship" on mustering out... yeesh!




Best ship design rules I ever saw, though.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jul 24, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> What the f.......?  Yeah, that's me....a foaming-at-the-mouth fanboy of D&D 3e. [insert sarcastic  emoticon here]
> 
> Is this a joke?  Really....tell me.  This totally has to be a joke, right?





Did I call you a fanboy? I don't think so. I dont see what AD&Disms you refer to in C&C but you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Im sorry I seemed to have pushed some sort of button with you, but the rancor in your reply is unnecessary. I play 3.x, D20 Modern, C&C, and SWD20 and like all of the systems. Perhaps you should have given it another go with a different GM. Either way, no problem, but if you calm down the medication might be unecessary.


----------



## Devall2000 (Jul 24, 2005)

Okay, nobody is responding to what I've had to say about the original Marvel Super Heroes RPG.

In a nutshell,  Aunt May can't defeat Galactus regardless of karma.  The ability levels may be adjectives but there was a numerical value associated with them as well.

Finally, I haven't heard any hard evidence to justify the Marvel RPG being called the worst system ever played.  On the whole, I haven't seen anything that was critical of the mechanics (minus, what I've said).  It was very simple yet at the same time, served as a very good introductory game into the world of RPG's.  The diceless version of the game or SAGA may qualify as the worst RPG but that came afterwards.  And, it was a completely different system.

The longevity of this rules lite RPG is based on 2 factors:  1: The Marvel brand name  2: TSR (TSR was the stuff, back then)  PROPS TO JEFF GRUBB!!!

-Jamie


----------



## ricoboc (Jul 24, 2005)

> I can't see any reason to spend time or money trying to make myself like another uninspired D&D clone when there are so many other great RPGs on the market today that I could be investing my gaming time into




I agree with this statement. These systems can drain ones wallet.




> I'd rather be playing the game or working on a campaign than writing and testing out houserules trying to make a (what I consider to be) pretty lackluster and mediocre attempt at game design work for me. Why should I put in the effort trying to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse when I have talented people like Chris Pramas, CJ Carella or Jake Norwood willing to do the design work for me?




Actually I find this to be one of the fun things about being a GM. I like creating and twisting to make things work. I do realize this can take some time and not everyone finds this fun.


----------



## James Heard (Jul 24, 2005)

What I think is funny is that I was considering going to check out C&C, until I saw a bunch of people slamming other people for having opinions on it while championing it. It's like when the guy with the pee bottles next to the computer tried to tell me how great Everquest was.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 24, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> You know...one day Akrasia's going to post in a thread and not mention C&C at all. That day will be like the day Nightfall didn't mention SL...yet another sign the world is ending.




Actually, I normally only discuss C&C in response to criticisms of it, or if the thread is specifically on C&C.  

I try not to bring it up here in nonrelevant threads (and I in fact did not mention it at all in this thread -- instead my first several posts were on WFRP and Rolemaster -- *until* it was subjected to some unfair IMO criticisms).

I like Warhammer FRP, Angel/Buffy (Cinematic Unisystem), and True 20 Adventure as much as C&C (it would be hard for me to rank them).  

But those games seem to attract less attention (both positive and negative) on these boards.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 24, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> What I think is funny is that I was considering going to check out C&C, until I saw a bunch of people slamming other people for having opinions on it while championing it. It's like when the guy with the pee bottles next to the computer tried to tell me how great Everquest was.




I don't understand this at all.  Why should the behaviour of people who had nothing to do with the design of the game -- and who will probably never play it with you -- affect your judgement of the game?  

The behaviour of random posters on the internet has _no_ effect on the actual quality of the game.

I've encountered some horrible behaviour by defenders of Conan and 3.5 D&D on various boards (far worse than anything in this thread), but their behaviour did not affect my judgement of those games.


----------



## Melan (Jul 24, 2005)

Wow. A thread about "The worst game you ever played" turned into a thread about C&C. Where is my rolleyes smiley, admins?  

[addendum] The one thing I have to take issue with is the "it is there for nostalgia" statement. This statement fails to understand that for some people, elements of C&C such as different XP tables for different classes, etc., are not nostalgic - they are merely an example of good game design. 

I find them  just as natural as D&D's class system or the Vancian magic. For some of us, these elements are not bugs which could only be liked because we are nostalgic about them. They are features of a game, nothing more and nothing less. Take my example: in 2000, I'd have been perfectly happy about a D&D 3e that was 1e with more sensible mechanics. I liked 3e fine enough, but when a game closer to AD&D's system came out (again, with better mechanics), I switched to it. Granted, with a few tweaks, but that's what I do with all games I run.


----------



## Tolen Mar (Jul 24, 2005)

(Warning..I didnt plan on it to be this long, but I posted it and saw how long it was.)

I've played a lot of systems.  Many only once and many for entire campaigns.

As far as systems go, any one that has you rolling increasing numbers of dice never floated for me.  I can't stand that type of system, and whether the game is considered good or not (by the gaming public at large), if it has that kind of system I shelve it again.

Now that being said, I have no specific game to lambast as a horrible experience or bad rules set aside from the above.  In fact, I'd like to take a moment or two to defends a few choices.

GURPS was the first RPG I played aside from DnD 1E. Course at the time, there were far fewer supplements available.  I don't have any problem with it now, except for as was mentioned, new DM's tend to try to use everything.  I once tried to start my own GURPS sci-fi game, and made the same mistake.  GURPS, Hi-Tech, Ultra-Tech, Mecha, The cybernetics book....Pare it back and add the pices as you need, it isnt that big of a deal.

(I also have no problem taking time to build detailed PC's so that won't necesarily turn me off of a system.)

Rolemaster/MERP I think are getting an unfair shake.  The only reason it takes so long to build new characters and has a list of skills a mile long is the same problem GURPS suffers from.  The more books you have, the more choices too.  It can take some time to read through them all.  Make sure a copy of the charts most likely to be used are in easy reach and the game isnt that slow.  (However, maybe making it use fewer charts would be a good idea.)  I like RM.  It plays nicely (once you get the long part, character creation, out of the way).

Palladium.  I still have a soft spot in my heart for the Palladium system.  Not the rules themselves of course, but I mean in a general sense.  I ran two successful Palladium system campaigns, one was RIFTS, and the other fantasy.  I even imported the juicer from rifts into the fantasy game for a player who wanted a dragonslayer.  (I had the juicer book, and stole the dragon juicer for it.)  Now I dont play it.  It got out of hand.  It makes no effort to balance a play group.  A good GM could do that, but I just dont have time for it now.

FASA trek is good, the Ship Combat game that you are to use is too clunky for my tastes (even though Im a big Star Fleet Battles fan, and it has a lot of similarities...despite being much shorter).  

Battlelords was fun.  It wasn't by any stretch a simplistic game.  The impression I got was that the guy who wrote it wanted to take the best parts of all the systems available (in his opinion) and cobble them together into a single game.  I mean it was put out by SSDC, but the attribute tables included 'system shock' ratings, 'lift bars' and other DnDisms...stir in this mechanic from this game, stir in that one from there...The odd thing is, it worked.  It didnt play that badly either.  Could have been fun, but like GURPS, I just dont have the time for another system.

(When I say I dont have time, I mean d20 pretty much sucks up my time now.  I'm in an Arcana Evolved game that will be wrapping up soon, and we are moving to Iron Heroes.  In my face to face group, it looks like Im going to be building a d20 modern variation on spelljammer.  2 games is about all I can devote myself to these days.)

The only system I plan on bashing here is a problem for me largely because of the creeped out feeling I get from its fans.  All but one, who is a good friend.  That's WoD...any of them.  I tried to get into Vampire, but couldn't.  The rules I read first off were all about whining over your cursed existence, and second IIRC were a multiple dice mechanic.  I played a vampire for a few sessions and while I could get into character, I couldnt get into the game.  I never bought the rulebooks, I borrowed them.  And since my friend was such a big vampire fan, I decided to.  I looked over all of my options and decided to pick up wraith.  The group was fine with me playing a ghost, but still it didnt fly well for me.  I just cant abide the system.  I eventually took the book back to the store.

Wait...I think I just remembered the worst system ever.  I've played a huge number of games..cyberpunk, earthdawn, skyrealms of jorune, star wars (though not d20 yet)...you name it, Ive probably at least read the books.  But the one system that I claim is the worst I feel is the worst because you only had one stat.  That stat was arrived at by rolling 1d10.  Everything you did was based on that single roll made during creation.  No skills, no feats, no special abilities.  It was called...T.W.E.R.P.S.  The Worlds Easiest Role Playing System.  Really.  I still need crackers for all this cheese.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 24, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should have given it another go with a different GM.



That's right, if you can't convince people I'm uninformed, convince them the GM just wasn't capable of presenting the game in the "appropriate light".  Do you guys have a Handbook or something, because this stuff seems really formulaic.

For the record, the GM ran a fine game of C&C and is one of the best GMs in terms of creating a fun and exciting game I've known in 26 years of playing RPGs.  It certainly wasn't his fault that I found the game to be completely uninspired and clunky.  



> Either way, no problem, but if you calm down the medication might be unecessary.



Laughter is my only medicine.  I think the ridiculous levels of mirth generated by the Inquisition tag-team in this thread have just about cured my allergies.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jul 24, 2005)

If you like C&C, and see someone say something bad about it, I think your best bet would be to say "It sounds like it's not the game for you" and move on. 

I don't have an opinion about C&C at all, but I know people being goaded into losing their temper when I see it. You folks are being manipulated into providing bad press for something you like. Don't fall for it.


----------



## Bihor (Jul 24, 2005)

*What no SAGA*

Seven pages of thread and no one mention the Saga system from TSR.

The system that use not dice but card, and was suposed to make roleplay more important.

I'm suprised that no one mentioned it, maybe I'm the only one that played it and lost money out the window to by the books/box.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 24, 2005)

Bihor said:
			
		

> Seven pages of thread and no one mention the Saga system from TSR.



I was trying to pretend it didn't exist.

Also, it's the "worst system you've ever played".  I took one look at that system and knew I didn't want to play it.  Mutilating Dragonlance to shoehorn it into that system was bad enough, playing through the system would have been far worse.


----------



## tec-9-7 (Jul 24, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> DM'ed - Flame away, but it was 3.0e.  I know there are probably worse systems out there to DM but I found this one the least fun of any game I DM'ed.  Of course I haven't DM'ed every system by a long shot.




I'll second this adding 3.5 as well.  I don't mind playing these games w/ the right players, but I'd as soon take a beating as DM them.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 24, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Also, it's the "worst system you've ever played".  I took one look at that system and knew I didn't want to play it.  Mutilating Dragonlance to shoehorn it into that system was bad enough, playing through the system would have been far worse.



From what I understand, it was more the other way around.

1. Dragonlance doesn't sell well enough to keep supporting with game stuff, so the AD&D Dragonlance line is cancelled.
2a. Weis & Hickman write Dragons of Summer Flame, nuking the setting.
2b. Simultaneously, someone at TSR comes up with the SAGA system.
3. That someone says, "We need a setting for this game. Hey, they just nuked Dragonlance, so why don't we use the remains to build a setting for SAGA?"


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 24, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> From what I understand, it was more the other way around.



The way I'd always heard it told (dating back to when this first happened) was as follows:

1. TSR was supporting almost a dozen lines, so no one line was selling particularly well (except maybe the Realms).
2. Trying to cash in on the "heavy roleplaying" fad that White Wolf was championing, they used the same creativitiy that brought us Dragon Dice to create the SAGA system as a rules-light/plot heavy system for people who couldn't be talked into playing AD&D.
3. TSR wanted to introduce SAGA as a way to bring plot/roleplaying heavy players from other (mostly White Wolf) games to TSR games.  Since Dragonlance had a big fan-base for it's novels that crossed over beyond gamers, this was a good way to lure them in with SAGA. 
4. SAGA system was unable to portray Dragonlance properly, since DL was written with D&Disms integral to the setting, while the simplified SAGA system coudn't easily depict normal vancian/D&D magic.
5. TSR owned the rights to Dragonlance, and thus they decided to change Dragonlance to fit SAGA, and Weis & Hickman are directed to produce a novel that gets rid of all magic, but leaves open the option for another magical system.  Dragons of Summer Flame is the result.
6. TSR releases Dragonlance SAGA, which goes down as a huge flop as AD&D games won't touch it, and the expected waves of crossover fans never materialize.  
7. Dragonlance fans generally hate the "5th Age", setting, as it removed much of what was good from the setting (say bye to Wizards of High Sorcery, fan fave Raistlin goes bye) and gave us weird things like angsty, goth Kender and alien super-dragons.
8. WotC buys TSR, and produces 3e D&D.
9. The War of Souls novel series is written, restoring the gods and magic, and retconning away some of the events of Dragons of Summer Flame.
10. The Dragonlance Campaign Setting is released by WotC/Soveriegn Press, finally restoring Dragonlance to it's D&D roots.


----------



## James Heard (Jul 24, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I don't understand this at all.  Why should the behaviour of people who had nothing to do with the design of the game -- and who will probably never play it with you -- affect your judgement of the game?



Yeah, but it shows a consistent theme of the _sorts_ of people I might run into and since I'm not hugely interested it in the first place it's enough. I'm sure professional wrestling can be interesting too, but a few vocal fans have convinced me that I don't want to bother with that either. In other words, if the majority of what I hear about _anything _is from a few vocal people whose attitudes I find offensive or even simply uncooth then there's a fairly good chance that I'm going to want to not associate myself with it. That's why I don't go to Cons either.

If it makes you feel better, consider it time management criteria.


----------



## VirtualWizard (Jul 24, 2005)

The worst game system for me has been Shadowrun 3rd edition.  Not that I liked 1st or 2nd edition any better.  I love the world setting where man meet magic and machine, but the dice rolling mechanics really dragged the game to a halt.  

One would think that a success based system would be simple to implement.  Roll some d6 vs. a target number, count up the number of successes, and check for the results, what could be easier.  However with dice pools and karma re-rolls, the game becomes a giant dice fest with players spending more time rolling their dice that actual role-playing.  

On top of that, the system for physical combat, magical combat, and matrix combat are different enough that they could be called separate systems.  Don't get me started on the rather complicated vehicle rules.  

Also with some skills, you don't count your successes only your highest roll?!?  I've both played and GMed several editions of the game, but I don't care for the game system.  I hope that the coming 4th edition will be better, but I'll wait and see.


----------



## ZuulMoG (Jul 24, 2005)

All this talk about DL has reminded me of my least favorite Setting to play in.  Krynn always seemed like a pointless waste of time to play in, because all of the interesting things one might do in any of the interesting places were/had been already done by characters from the books.

As far as the worst Game I ever played/DMed in, that's Shadowrun.  Bought the books, got my friends together, we rolled up characters (even me, the ostensible DM), and roleplayed for about an hour before we got to our first fight...

...and not one of us could find a whiff of combat rules anywhere in the blasted book.

Worst.
System.
Ever.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jul 24, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> ...and not one of us could find a whiff of combat rules anywhere in the blasted book.
> 
> Worst.
> System.
> Ever.




Wait, what? You couldn't find the combat rules in _Shadowrun_? Most of the rulebook is...

Oh, wait, irony. Hah!


----------



## ZuulMoG (Jul 24, 2005)

No, I'm dead serious.  There are absolutely no rules in the Shadowrun book that detail how to even determine initiative, let alone resolve an attack.  I've said it once, and I'll say it again...

Worst.
System.
Ever.


----------



## Brakkart (Jul 24, 2005)

Oh for me it's gotta be MERP. I just couldn't understand how that system worked (thankfully I wasn't DMing) and the one and only game I ever played of it we (3 characters) set out to head to another town, got attacked by 2 orcs as we camped for the night. the next day we went back to where we had came from and resolved NEVER to leave town again. Of the three intact people who set out, we were missing 2 eyes, 2 hands and a leg. No combat system should be quite that brutal.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jul 24, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> No, I'm dead serious. There are absolutely no rules in the Shadowrun book that detail how to even determine initiative, let alone resolve an attack. I've said it once, and I'll say it again...
> 
> Worst.
> System.
> Ever.




Huh? Look, I don't like Shadowrun either, but the book has those rules. Lots of them, in fact. What's the title of the book you're referring to?


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jul 24, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> That's right, if you can't convince people I'm uninformed, convince them the GM just wasn't capable of presenting the game in the "appropriate light".  Do you guys have a Handbook or something, because this stuff seems really formulaic.
> 
> For the record, the GM ran a fine game of C&C and is one of the best GMs in terms of creating a fun and exciting game I've known in 26 years of playing RPGs.  It certainly wasn't his fault that I found the game to be completely uninspired and clunky.
> 
> ...





LOL! I feel like I am arguing with my sisters kids here. If you can deflect your broad generalizations enough back to me then somehow you are credible, is that it? I have played C&C twice, ever. Currently playing SWD20. If that makes me a me a member of the inquisition tag team then *shrug*. Either way, thanks for the laugh!


----------



## Psion (Jul 24, 2005)

Bihor said:
			
		

> Seven pages of thread and no one mention the Saga system from TSR.
> 
> The system that use not dice but card, and was suposed to make roleplay more important.
> 
> I'm suprised that no one mentioned it, maybe I'm the only one that played it and lost money out the window to by the books/box.




I didn't care to much for the system on a fundamental level. FWIW.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jul 25, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The way I'd always heard it told (dating back to when this first happened) was as follows:




   From everything I've heard (most of it from the SAGA/DL:5A designers and Weis & Hickman), this is largely backwards.  _Dragons of Summer Flame_ was written by W&H with little restriction from TSR; the only major change was that they were only contracted for one book instead of the trilogy they wanted to do.  Sales on it were good enough that TSR gave the go-ahead for the game line to be revived.  Various ideas were brainstormed, and at some point, management mandated that it not be AD&D (apparently because of poor sales on the original line, and possibly to get DL out from under the D&D movie deal).  They _may_ have demanded that it be diceless; my information's unclear on this point.  In any case, the removal of the gods and D&D-style magic from the setting predate the design of the system.

   I rather liked the SAGA System, even if I've come to think it was wasted on Dragonlance.  

   Matthew L. Martin


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 25, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> No, I'm dead serious.  There are absolutely no rules in the Shadowrun book that detail how to even determine initiative, let alone resolve an attack.




Okay.

I'll just point out that the sections involving combat are clearly marked as such, and are findable both using the Table of Contents and Index in both Second and Third editions.  

SR Third Edition, p. 100:  Combat section.  The very first heading is Initiative, which details, unsurprisingly, how to determine initiative.  Subsequent sections detail how to blow peoples' heads off, break necks, etc.

SR Second Edition, p. 76, Combat section.  Initiative appears on page 79.  Subsequent sections, of course, detail how to have combat, with nice examples, such as Wedge blowing away some gangers with autofire.

Brad


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jul 25, 2005)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Okay.
> 
> I'll just point out that the sections involving combat are clearly marked as such, and are findable both using the Table of Contents and Index in both Second and Third editions.




I think I know where his problem is; which is why I asked him what the name of the book they were using was. You see, there *is* a book in the Shadowrun product line that you could make characters with but wouldn't have the combat rules...the Companion. My theory is, based on their description, is that they mistook it for the corebook. It's the only plausible explanation; say what you will about Shadowrun, it has combat rules.


----------



## philreed (Jul 25, 2005)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Space Opera joins Chivalry & Sorcery as the only games where I spent an entire gaming session creating a character, only to never play the game because we were so burnt out on character generation that we didn't want to try the game.




Sounds like my experience with Dangerous Journeys.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jul 25, 2005)

Of course, the best way to continue this thread (were there one, perhaps the least bad way), would be to only state your own opinion and reasons, and then let it be.  Don't respond to other peoples' posts or feel like you need to defend your favorite One True Roleplaying Game (Earthdawn for me) against people who malign it because it's not their favorite One True Roleplaying Game, but obviously should be, because, you know, it's YOUR favorite OTRG, and if other people question that, they question the whole of your existence, and your validity as a human being is at stake, but most importantly, you've got some street cred you're trying to maintain and if anyone is allowed to disagree with what the OTRG is, then you're going to look the fool.

Errr...has anyone noticed how these threads resemble threads on religion and politics?


----------



## Psion (Jul 25, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Errr...has anyone noticed how these threads resemble threads on religion and politics?




I think I've made the metaphor "Gaming Holy Wars" at a few junctures.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Jul 25, 2005)

Yup... anytime a thread like this comes up, you may as well bring the hot dogs and marshmallows, cuz a flame war is going to break out.  Guaranteed.

I wish I'd had the experiences many of the posters have had with all the games listed.  I've never even heard of most of them.  90% of my gaming experience has been with AD&D then 3.x.  The only significant departure into any other system was Mayfair's DC Heroes.  I never GM'd it, but played many, many hours in it.  The worst part of that was the length of time it took to resolve combat, but I loved playing it.

So overall, except for FASA's Star Trek game (which I mentioned earlier in the thread), I've had good experiences with the various games I've played.  FASA's ST:RPG was, in my opinion, awful.  I'd welcome the chance to play in some of the aforementioned terrible games, just to share in the badness.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jul 25, 2005)

Dinkeldog, you got it right.  I never meant to rile up the RM fans when I stated my dislike for the system.  Just because I didn't like it doesn't mean that the system has somehow gotten worse, or that my dissenting vote is going to pull away tons of potential buyers.  There has been a lot of debate about this system being bad or not being bad.  The good of a system is totally subjective.  It's all in the eye of the beholder, and there's little to no point in getting into a heated debate about it.

Kane


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 25, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> It's good to see that you've learned an important lesson here -- namely, the importance of understanding that your subjective experiences do _not_ establish universal facts.




Quoted for being the funniest thing said in this, or probably any other, thread.


----------



## radferth (Jul 25, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> Well this is just painfully obvious I have to say Palladium.




I must second that one.  I played in a long-running Paladium Fantasy game.  The campaign was quite enjoyable, but the system was just odd.  Lots of rules that seemed there just to make it different from D&D.  Lots of contradictory rules.  Ability scores that have virtually no effect on the game except for qualifying for classes (unless they were quite high).  Absolutely no attempt to balance the races even a little.  I just ran my little symbologist (or whatever I was called) and ignored whatever else was happening with the other characters.  The GM (a good one) had to spend a lot of time making rules interpretations and then revising them a couple of sessions later when someone would discover a loophole.  Like I said, the campaign was fun, but I think it would have been even more fun if we just decided what happened off the top of our heads, rather than using the rules we were.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> Yeah, but it shows a consistent theme of the _sorts_ of people I might run into ....




Ummm ... no.  The sample size of 'vocal posters' concerning anything on any message board is far too small to make *any* legitimate generalizations about the kinds of people who like the product in question.  

In short, your methodology is deeply flawed.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Quoted for being the funniest thing said in this, or probably any other, thread.




While I always aim to entertain, I don't understand how what I stated could possibly qualify as 'funny'. 

It is strange that some people find stating basic truths 'funny'.   :\


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 25, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> It is strange that some people find stating basic truths 'funny'.   :\




It's all in the juxtaposition.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Of course, the best way to continue this thread (were there one, perhaps the least bad way), would be to only state your own opinion and reasons, and then let it be...




I don't have a problem with people expressing their opinions about various games.  On that people are bound to disagree -- just as they disagree in their opinions concerning films, music, or whatever.

But when people make factually incorrect claims about a game system (especially a system that you happen to like), or express their opinions as though they were facts, then it is hard to resist posting a reply.  

It does not surprise me at all that a thread with this kind of topic is going to open up some heated debate.  (And not just regarding C&C, which is a frequent topic of argument for some reason on these boards, but GURPs, WFRP, Shadowrun, etc., as well.)


----------



## Cavalorn (Jul 25, 2005)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> First response--impressive!
> 
> But "Fantasy Wargaming" by Bruce Galloway is the worst ever.




Do not criticise that work of genius!  It had the best special ability description of all time:

God: 'Three persons. Can operate independently.'


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It's all in the juxtaposition.




Juxtaposition of what?   There's nothing being 'juxtaposed' in your post, or in the original quote.  

Look, I understand if you're just trolling.  But at least try to be somewhat clever about it.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jul 25, 2005)

Akrasia, Patryn was paying you a compliment.  He thought what you said was witty in a funny way.  There's no troll there.

Kane


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Akrasia, Patryn was paying you a compliment.  He thought what you said was witty in a funny way.  There's no troll there.
> 
> Kane




I guess I'm a little dense today.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 25, 2005)

> But when people make factually incorrect claims about a game system (especially a system that you happen to like), or express their opinions as though they were facts, then it is hard to resist posting a reply.



If only the speaker would listen to his own words.

Quasqueton


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> If only the speaker would listen to his own words.
> 
> Quasqueton




Heh -- now that _is_ a clear attempt at trolling.  

Please, Quasqueton, point out my posts where I have confused my opinion with facts.

I have always tried my best to qualify _any_ evaluative claim as _my_ opinion. 

If I have failed somewhere, I apologize.  And I'd also be grateful to know where precisely I've failed.

Thanks for your help!


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 25, 2005)

cheadberg said:
			
		

> Anyway what Rpg system have you played in your years of gaming that you would have to say was the worst ever?



This took a little bit of deciding. OK no, there's a clear winner:   



Spoiler



1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.




*would dive for cover but is feeling lethargic atm, come what may*


----------



## Turjan (Jul 25, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with people expressing their opinions about various games.  On that people are bound to disagree -- just as they disagree in their opinions concerning films, music, or whatever.
> 
> But when people make factually incorrect claims about a game system (especially a system that you happen to like), or express their opinions as though they were facts, then it is hard to resist posting a reply.



I just quote this because it's an important distinction. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but if the reasoning contains factual errors, I like to point this out. That's why I said something in defense of C&C, although the game doesn't even interest me and is far from being my "favorite One True Roleplaying Game".


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 25, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Akrasia, Patryn was paying you a compliment.




No, Kane, Akrasia's right.  There's no compliment there.  It's funny because Akrasia, a card-carrying member of the C&C Crusade / Inquisition, Akrasia was taking someone to task for voicing "opinion as fact."

Whereas, in this very thread, we find such delicious little statements as:



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> It is clear that the CK in question simply does not understand the whole point of C&C.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




You'll notice that Akrasia's rebutting the claim that there's an objective flaw in the rules by pointing out that some people don't have that problem.  In other words, "You are presenting your opinion that there's a flaw in the rules as objective fact.  This is simply *not true*; no flaw in the rules exists, and my basis is *the opinions of other people.*"

Yeah, it's more than a little hypocritical.

And, egads:



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> But my more general point in that post was that *any* designer of *any* RPG probably should not post in this thread for purely pragmatic reasons.




Opinion presented as fact without a clear IMHO tag!


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Jul 25, 2005)

*Aftermath!* and *Skyrealms of Jorune* had utterly crappy systems, but the other info was great.

_Aftermath!_, for example, has an entire book dedicated to creating your own PA setting. I'm currently using it to create one.

_Jorune_ was the most amazingly creative setting, with awesome artwork and a cultural depth you don't often find in RPGs. Unfortunately, the system was completely unplayable, and the books gave little or no direction as to what kinds of adventures were out there to be had.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jul 25, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, Kane, Akrasia's right.  There's no compliment there.  It's funny because Akrasia, a card-carrying member of the C&C Crusade / Inquisition, Akrasia was taking someone to task for voicing "opinion as fact."




Oops!  My bad then.    

Kane


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 25, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Oops!  My bad then.
> 
> Kane




That's ok; I forgive you!


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 25, 2005)

Well, I've mostly stayed away from systems that I could tell easily were bad.  So the worst I've ever played probably aren't very bad by most gamers' standards.

That said, I'd probably put AD&D or MERP up as the worst I played.  AD&D because it didn't make much sense, was unnecessarily convoluted and restrictive, and forced the D&Disms of the game too strongly for my taste.  It actively drove me away from D&D, if not completely from RPGs at all, for years.  MERP not because it was such a horrible system (I think it was mediocre at worst) but because it was such a mismatch from the source material.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, Kane, Akrasia's right.




Ahhh … so you _were _trolling.  Thanks for clearing that up!  



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> …. It's funny because Akrasia, a card-carrying member of the C&C Crusade / Inquisition …




Thanks for your attempt at an ad hominem attack.

I like C&C (plus WFRP, True 20, Unisystem, and many other games).  But I have never made any disparaging remarks about people who do not like C&C.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You'll notice that Akrasia's rebutting the claim that there's an objective flaw in the rules by pointing out that some people don't have that problem. In other words, "You are presenting your opinion that there's a flaw in the rules as objective fact. This is simply not true; no flaw in the rules exists, and my basis is the opinions of other people."
> 
> Yeah, it's more than a little hypocritical.




That paraphrase is your own creative (i.e. incorrect) interpretation of what I said. 

I direct you to what I in fact said:

“Lots of other GMs do *not* have the problems you describe with C&C.  So no, your poor experience is *not* the result of some kind of ‘fundamental problem’ with the game itself.”

Let me explain: if there was a ‘fundamental problem’ with the rule that *caused* ‘bad GM’ing’, then, quite simply, other GMs would have _the same problem with the rules_.

Since they don’t, the original claim is patently false.  

It is simple logic – not opinion.  



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Opinion presented as fact without a clear IMHO tag!




Rubbish.

Please note that what I actually said included the remark: “_probably should _not post…”  

Basic familiarity with the normal conventions of the English language should make it clear that I am giving some qualified (‘probably’) advice (‘should’) here – not making an factual claim.

But please, continue your trolling and ad hominem attacks.

They’re quite amusing!


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Jul 25, 2005)

I thought this was a thread, but apparently it's a throwdown.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 25, 2005)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> I thought this was a thread, but apparently it's a throwdown.



That's not unusual for a thread in which C&C is mentioned and Akrasia posts.  It's kinda funny that he notes that C&C is a frequent topic of argument on these boards, without noting that he's the common element in most of those arguments.  

No offense, Akr...  I'm just sayin'...


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Jul 25, 2005)

Worst RPG ever?  I think we've been observing that the last few posts.

Can we just move on, please?


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2005)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> I thought this was a thread, but apparently it's a throwdown.




Apparently 'Akrasia' is the worst RPG system that a few people have played.  

(I don't understand why Patryn and Quasqueton felt the need to make attacks on me here -- maybe they're just bitter about something.)


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's not unusual for a thread in which C&C is mentioned and Akrasia posts.  It's kinda funny that he notes that C&C is a frequent topic of argument on these boards, without noting that he's the common element in most of those arguments.
> 
> No offense, Akr...  I'm just sayin'...




No offense taken.  But I make no apologies for defending C&C against _unwarranted_ attacks and criticisms.

I don't mind if people simply do not _like_ the game, or make legitimate complaints against it (it is not perfect, and I have problems with certain aspects of it myself).  But a lot of the attacks that have been made in the past against C&C have often rested on false assumptions, or have been expressions of opinion masquerading as fact.

When others have made incorrect claims about 3e or d20 on these boards, they have been criticized -- and rightly so.  I don't see why C&C should be denied the same respect.

I would defend other games I know and like as well -- e.g. WFRP, True 20, Angel/Buffy -- with just as much effort.  But those systems tend not to attract as much attention here.


----------



## GVDammerung (Jul 25, 2005)

My hands down choice would be - Hunter Planet.  The only RPG I have ever _thrown_ away.  Maybe you have to be Australian.  I sure didn't "get it."


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 25, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> has anyone noticed how these threads resemble threads on religion and politics?





Well, except that RPGs are a lot more important than religion and politics.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 25, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> But I have never made any disparaging remarks about people who do not like C&C.




I believe that would be a matter of opinion, one which Jackelope King and his DM might disagree with.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 25, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> That paraphrase is your own creative (i.e. incorrect) interpretation of what I said.




You certain about that?



> “Lots of other GMs do *not* have the problems you describe with C&C.  So no, your poor experience is *not* the result of some kind of ‘fundamental problem’ with the game itself.”
> 
> Let me explain: if there was a ‘fundamental problem’ with the rule that *caused* ‘bad GM’ing’, then, quite simply, other GMs would have _the same problem with the rules_.
> 
> Since they don’t, the original claim is patently false.




This is simply not true.  And, again, your point boils down to:

1.  Lots of other DMs have an opinion that the game doesn't lead to bad DMing.
2.  Therefore, there's no flaw.

The problem, of course, is that all you've established is that, if there *is* a flaw, then the DMs you routinely talk to who aren't complaining about it either: 1) are immune to the flaw, or 2) recognize the flaw and avoid it (even, perhaps, subconciously).

You have failed to demonstrate the non-existence of the flaw - which, since you so often bring up your training in Logic, you should have realized before you even started posting rebuttals.

You have no basis to speak about the feelings of those who haven't posted on whatever other board you're pulling your data from, and certainly no basis to speak about objective reality.



> It is simple logic – not opinion.




Based on opinions.



> Basic familiarity with the normal conventions of the English language should make it clear that I am giving some qualified (‘probably’) advice (‘should’) here – not making an factual claim.




On the other hand, one could just as reasonably assume that you were presenting a moral rule ("should").


----------



## Jackelope King (Jul 25, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I believe that would be a matter of opinion, one which Jackelope King and his DM might disagree with.



I'm certainly not happy with the way my group, my GM and myself has been told that we don't understand the game, that we're ill-suited to play it, and that we just don't get it. I haven't told my GM about this thread, and luckily he's not a big internet guy, so I don't need to worry about him stumbling onto this thread and finding out that some guy who has no idea who he is has decided that since he didn't like running C&C, he is a "bad GM".

However, I don't consider his opinion to be worth all that much anyway (since mine is apparently similarly worthless to him). I'm glad Akrasia enjoys the game and I'm glad he's found a place to voice his support of the game, but I wish he'd allow me the same courtesy to express my dislike of the game.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2005)

Patryn,  the original poster claimed that the game _itself_ was so deeply flawed that it _caused_ bad GM'ing.  This is a _very_ strong claim to make -- and thus one easily refuted.  Indeed, the mere fact that many GMs find the game in question to be _conducive_ to good GM'ing is sufficient to refute it.  (And yes, since I know many other GMs of C&C from this board and others, it is perfectly legitimate for me to use their experiences with the system in rebutting the original claim.)  

It is as simple as that.  If the original poster had said that the game rules did not work well with his group (as he eventually did), then I would have had no argument with him.

Also, with respect to another one of your comments, there are many kinds of normative claims (i.e. 'should' claims) -- not all are moral.  (E.g. "If one wants to make money on the stock market, one should buy low and sell high" is not a moral claim, but a normative one.)

Anyway, I've contributed enough to the derailing of this thread.   Time to stop my procrastination!

Cheers!


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 25, 2005)

When a moderator makes a suggestion that people stop arguing about their favorite system, please:
1) Stop arguing about your favorite system; and
2) Stop arguing about other folks' favorite systems.

This thread reminds me of a song. Fortunately, I got one hand on the brakes.

SCREEEEECH!
Daniel


----------

