General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Well, I refuse to play F.A.T.A.L., RaHoWa and anything in their vein.
I must say I appreciate how RaHoWa makes every Untermensch actually mechanically superior to the Aryan master race, though.
Then there are games I've tried, tested, and found to be unplayable. I refuse to play Rolemaster and any of its derivatives, such as Middle-Earth Role-Play, AD&D 2E and D&D 4E. That's about it. Anything else I'm willing to try.
__________________ Come visit #enworld, EN World's official chatroom, at irc.otherworlders.org!
It is hard to find a game I wouldn't try. There are many I played only once - but for me to refuse a game without even giving it a chance it needs to be really bad.
The only causes I can come up with that would prevent me from giving a system a try are:
- a setting that is neither simple nor oryginal; one that looks like a kitchen sink full of old, borrowed ideas
- mechanics that is needlesly complicated and hurts play instead of helping it; a military, tactical game may use a math heavy system, but it is a capital crime for a game aiming for a cinematic adventure
- a lot of sex and/or violence for sex/violence sake; I have nothing against violent or sexual themes if they help the stories told or allow better character characterization - but if someone puts them in the game just because, it is not worth playing (it's like a difference between a war movie or romance and a gore thriller or porn)
You do not know that many (perhaps most) live-action games take place in private venues, in which the only witnesses are themselves players?
As a matter of fact I didn't know that, though, in retrospect, it should have been pretty obvious.
Quote:
One game I played was about a dozen people (all of whom I knew personally), in one conference room with closed doors - we were the US President and his cabinet, dealing with a crisis (akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis).
That sounds absolutely fantastic. I'd be up for that.
Quote:
So, would you play a LARP in your own home, or that of a friend?
Let me amend my previous answer: yes, if the scenario would be improved by LARP'ing, like your Cuban Missile Crisis example.
Quote:
In a thing so thoroughly flexible as a role-playing game, why do we have inflexible views about what a game might entail?
Well, for one, because people have different comfort levels when it comes to public and semi-public behavior.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
My list of games I won't play is pretty small, assuming a good group of people to play with.
I don't see what circumstances would ever come about such that I'd find myself playing a Vampire or similarly angst-y game. But never say never, I guess.
I also quickly get frustrated and bored with games that have extensive char-gen. If it's a one session thing after which we'll get on to the gaming, fine. If it's something we have to re-visit over and over again, I'm probably not going to like it.
I'm another who's not interested in sex in rpgs.
The more scripted the game is, the less I'll like it. I generally want the GM to get his hands off of my pc.
My list of games I won't run is pretty huge. I've basically given up on ever running another multi-volume, 600+ page core rule rpg. (AD&D 1e being the exception due to the years of familiarity.) Anymore, if you can't get the core of your rpg across to me in ~120 pages or less, I'm simply not interested in running it.
__________________ <exasperated DM> "Underlying what? ... motivation? Do you want to play Dungeons & Dragons or not?"
<drama obsessed player> "How can I narrate my character's co-mingled sense of alienation and ennui towards modern society in this second-rate dungeon hack? My character returns to the surface and uses his remaining gold to start up an organic coffee shop that caters to left-wing revolutionaries... and hot elvish chicks."
I won't play games of the "gnostic cosmology in the modern world" subgenre.
Could you elaborate on this, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
For me, the only games I wouldn't play are the ones obviously not meant seriously like FATAL, RaHoWa, and such.
I do prefer random character creation to set character creation though, I could just create Mega Traveller characters all day long in the old days, it was a game in itself. I wish there were more creation games.
Could you elaborate on this, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Oh, it seems like 10 years ago or so there were a bunch of games that were based on gnostic or Manichean cosmologies and they were usually set in the modern world. Maybe because of the popularity of the Sandman comics? Games like Kult. I find them to be rather weak.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
For me, the only games I wouldn't play are the ones obviously not meant seriously like FATAL, RaHoWa, and such.
I find those games abhorrent precisely because they, to all appearances, are meant seriously. I've read the full RaHoWa (such as it is - the game is incomplete) and a large chunk of F.A.T.A.L., and I see nothing to hint that they have not been written in all seriousness, apart from the fact that no well-adjusted person would write stuff like that seriously.
Unfortunately, even the maladjusted ones can use a word processor. Not very well, by the looks of things, but still.
__________________ Come visit #enworld, EN World's official chatroom, at irc.otherworlders.org!
I find those games abhorrent precisely because they, to all appearances, are meant seriously. I've read the full RaHoWa (such as it is - the game is incomplete) and a large chunk of F.A.T.A.L., and I see nothing to hint that they have not been written in all seriousness, apart from the fact that no well-adjusted person would write stuff like that seriously.
Unfortunately, even the maladjusted ones can use a word processor. Not very well, by the looks of things, but still.
My brain refuses to believe that. It might be the truth, but I'm sticking with my interpretation.
The more "passive aggressive" people who were not satisfied with their choice of player characters due to not rolling very well on their ability scores, used another "workaround". Typically these people would be deliberately killing off their characters relatively quickly and early in the game, so that they could create another character. If their new characters were also not to their satisfaction, they would repeat the same quick "killing off" of their characters again so that they can roll up another character.
This is actually the official RAW way of handling sub-par characters in my 2nd favorite game, Omega World.
I will play most any kind of game as long as it isn't tasteless. Keeping an open mind is how I lucked into playing OD&D. So I've found a willingness to try new things is an asset in life.
In general I have a strong preference for Roleplay Simulation-based games, as that has been the design for most of the hobby industry's history. Plus the emphasis in RPS is almost entirely on problem solving, creative thinking, and comprehensive imagining for the Players.
I typically find character exploration RPGs dull. Storytelling and predetermined plotting have always felt rather limited and like I was being taken for a ride. The flipside for storygames that aren't plotted are games without substance or form, so I end up feeling like I am playing God rather than a character.
Games where roleplaying, of either type, is not the game objective because of design can be fun too. But I generally don't play them for roleplaying purposes. CCGs were never my thing and most minis/manual simuilation games have only been fun for me when played in conjunction with RPGs. Board games on the other hand have really come a long way in the last few years, but ironically have become less useful to RPG design because of it.
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
