What is, in your opinion, the single WORST RPG ever made, and why is it so bad?

[GMMichael]

Meanwhile, the Aliens RPG had the following useful guidance on skills "Most are self-explanatory":

View attachment 343943

To help distinguish, you know, between those officers who are great at "forward observer," but terrible at "military identification."

You don't know the intricacies of each!? Is it because we left all that whitespace on the page, or because you didn't take enough skill in "intelligence?"

 

[Celebrim]

We are having a peaceful, respectful conversation about the things we dislike, and yet here you come in, disparaging people, yucking our yum, and then call us toxic?

I often wonder if some people's tastes and opinions have never been criticized. Of course, we are "yucking other people's yum" in this thread. That was inevitable. I'm on record as thinking 3.X D&D is one of the greatest games ever made. Am I supposed to get super offended that some people disagree and say it's the worst? Is the opinion supposed to be offensive to me or something? Oh no, someone yucked my yum? To arms!?!?

I've always liked a lot of things people don't like and there have always been people more than happy to tell me that what I like sucks.

Heck, in a different thread I'd be happy to discuss all the ways some of my favorite games/systems like CoC 7e, D&D 3.0e, and WEG D6 Star Wars suck despite in my opinion being incredible games. D&D sucks is something I've been hearing from both nerds and non-nerds for over 40 years now.

I really would like to take the next step beyond discussing what games we hate and focusing like the OP said on why mechanics are bad. Like the post with "Most of these skills are self-evident" is a great example of terrible design and writing not just because what the skill does is not self-evident, but if the skills are that vaguely defined by the system they probably don't do much of anything. When exactly does a "Guerilla Warfare" roll apply that no other more generic skill wouldn't?

I see lists like that and if it's a big warning flag not to take those things as skills because they probably don't come up much or have much of an impact if they do. I think I have a pretty good handle on what makes for an excellent skill system, and it's not that. For a modern game that's just a terrible understanding of how to have a good skill system and it's also to me a sign of poor play testing, because one way to play test a skill system is play a lot and then ask, "Which skills never came up in play?" Those skills probably should be eliminated or bundled into something else.

That said, there are a few glorious mechanics in the Aliens RPG and it's not the worst thing I've ever played and problematic skill systems are one of the most common things in a game design. CoC and WEG D6 Star Wars both have this problem with a poorly defined skill system as well, though nothing I've encountered comes close to the mess GURPS is when it comes to skills.

 

[Yora]

That Star Wars game that is all (proprietary) funky dice has stuck with me as having the most off-putting dice resolution system I have ever heard of. It's really the only thing I know about it. Once I saw that, I just wanted to run away and never look back.

 

[aramis erak]

I don't think it's impossible for games to actually be badly designed, even if they have people who like them. The ET Atari game springs to mind. So does the recent Gollum game. (Personally, I would also count Monopoly as such a game as well.)

Monopoly, as actually standardized by the publisher is a much better game than as it is typically played by casual players.
As written, it's mostly about the auctions. Yes, auctions. If you don't buy at face, it is supposed to immediately be auctioned off. Makes the game much shorter, much tighter, and bankruptcy that much sooner.
Not a great game, but definitely not as bad as the common house rules - no auctions, paying fees to the board (instead of the bank), taking the money on the board when landing on free parking...

It's an excellent warning about houseruling.

 

[aramis erak]

That Star Wars game that is all (proprietary) funky dice has stuck with me as having the most off-putting dice resolution system I have ever heard of. It's really the only thing I know about it. Once I saw that, I just wanted to run away and never look back.

And yet, it plays quite well... of the last 20 years, it's my most run game. The dice are a barrier, but not as much of one as many grogs seem to think, since it's sold quite well...

 

[Jer]

The purpose of this thread should be to discuss bad mechanics in RPGs and how they can best be avoided to develop better games in the future.

There are games with bad mechanics, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad games to play. Palladium's games are awful when it comes to mechanics and yet I had a lot of fun playing TMNT when I was a kid.

The games that I find to be bad games are the ones where the mechanics don't align with the kind of game they're trying to be. Like the old Tales from the Crypt game. Perfectly serviceable mechanics - it was Masterbook which is a bit chart heavy but fine for the late 1990s - but a really disappointing game in play because the mechanics of Masterbook were action-adventure but Tales from the Crypt is more ironic horror and they did almost nothing to try to make the mechanics of the game work with the style of the material. They tried to get the theme into the game by writing it in a sarcastic Cryptkeeper voice, but that doesn't help you when you're at the table.

(And then there are the "so bad it's good" games which is admittedly a specialized taste. Synnibar is IMO a "so bad it's good game" - you don't necessarily want to play it but dang it's eye popping to contemplate the mad genius that created the game.)

 

[billd91]

That Star Wars game that is all (proprietary) funky dice has stuck with me as having the most off-putting dice resolution system I have ever heard of. It's really the only thing I know about it. Once I saw that, I just wanted to run away and never look back.

I've actually had a lot of fun with it, though I don't get many chances to play. It's a lot easier to learn than it initially looks and most of the noobs I've played with at conventions (including myself several years back) pick it up readily enough. It's very good at generating non-binary results.

 

[Jahydin]

That is where I am in my life, and that is also why I think that this thread is toxic

I think this thread is awesome, so quit crapping on my "yum". Not all threads are made for you.

 

[Deset Gled]

Monopoly, as actually standardized by the publisher is a much better game than as it is typically played by casual players.
As written, it's mostly about the auctions. Yes, auctions. If you don't buy at face, it is supposed to immediately be auctioned off. Makes the game much shorter, much tighter, and bankruptcy that much sooner.
Not a great game, but definitely not as bad as the common house rules - no auctions, paying fees to the board (instead of the bank), taking the money on the board when landing on free parking...

It's an excellent warning about houseruling.

The other critical thing is that there is no cash earned for landing on Free Parking. It's just a plain space - nothing happens there. And no bonus for landing on Go either.

If you follow that and the auction rules, there is actually a net negative cash flow to the game. On average, you spend more than $200 dollars going around the board. That, combined with the fact that every property is guaranteed to be bought the first time it's landed on, guarantees that the game is relatively fast.

I like Monopoly.

 

[Aldarc]

There are games with bad mechanics, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad games to play. Palladium's games are awful when it comes to mechanics and yet I had a lot of fun playing TMNT when I was a kid.

The games that I find to be bad games are the ones where the mechanics don't align with the kind of game they're trying to be. Like the old Tales from the Crypt game. Perfectly serviceable mechanics - it was Masterbook which is a bit chart heavy but fine for the late 1990s - but a really disappointing game in play because the mechanics of Masterbook were action-adventure but Tales from the Crypt is more ironic horror and they did almost nothing to try to make the mechanics of the game work with the style of the material. They tried to get the theme into the game by writing it in a sarcastic Cryptkeeper voice, but that doesn't help you when you're at the table.

(And then there are the "so bad it's good" games which is admittedly a specialized taste. Synnibar is IMO a "so bad it's good game" - you don't necessarily want to play it but dang it's eye popping to contemplate the mad genius that created the game.)

This I think dovetails nicely into the idea that sometimes it's not that a mechanic in itself is bad, but that particular mechanic does not seem to fit well with the whole system or genre of play that the designer(s) desires to cultivate with the game.