"Bad" and "Good" RPGs

[Col_Pladoh]

As to bad and good RPGs…

The thread about the worst RPG is fun and enlightening too. By reading the posts one can see that tastes vary widely in this field, and that one man’s meat is indeed another’s poison. In my view no RPG can be entirely bad when at least some gamers have fun with it. Such games are just not popular…

Fact is, I like some games that aren’t popular, and some I don’t like much are quite popular, so I guess that makes me a lot like most others involved in this great hobby. So, here’s my take on a few of the games that were mentioned pro and con, my pros

BOOT HILL needed a good deal of revision to make a full-blown RPG. I wanted to do that, but it went OOP before I could find the time. We had a great campaign going, but it was mostly economic in nature, with not much gunfighting involved. With a few additional rules sections, a lot more of the potential for the system could have been set forth, and some special mechanics for campaign gunfighting to cut down the chances of death would have helped.

PARANOIA was fun, had excellent potential, and it needed a new part, a campaign rules portion, to move it from a jape on RPGs to become a genuine one. All the material needed for that was basically in the game—it just needed to be quantified for the GM, and some guidelines, rules and mechanics. For example, who was behind the system that was set forth? Could players work their way up the ranks and penetrate the veil? What about a “resistance”? That sort of thing. I urged the designers to include such ideas, but…

TOP SECRET was a game I had fun playing. It was never properly supported, and it needed a sourcebook for the Administrator so as to enable campaign creation and development, as well as modules that lad some real playing time involved. Those published lasted a single session, two maybe.

There’s my take on a few

Gary

 

[AnthonyRoberson]

Top Secret

I was quite fond of TOP SECRET myself and it was one of the few games my early group played besides AD&D and CHAMPIONS. I wonder, does anyone know what Mr. Rasmussen (sp) is up to these days?

 

[King_Stannis]

very interesting, gary. thanks for the insight. i never did get to run or play boot hill, though i have a copy of the rules. i did use the saloon map in back for part of a deadlands adventure.

and of course, we won't ask you what you think of those storyteller games

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Top Secret seemed like a cool game, my group started a game but it never got off the ground.

I would like to say that, to this day i sometimes miss the simplicity of "basic" D&D, or to a lesser degree 1e.

The orginal marvel rules are a favorite of mine also, in fact i should be playing that game again soon.

I'd also like to point out Warhammer fantasy, the settings cool and i like the character creation system, now if i could just get someone to play it.

 

[BluWolf]

Alot of the systems I played outside the "main" stream I enjoyed because they had cool little ideosynchrocies or fun concepts.

Most of them were just under boiled eggs that never held attention past a few sessions or even a few readings.

Some fo the fun ones;
Bushido
Car Wars
Battletech
TMNT
V&V
Toon
Twilight 2000

Some of the REALLY bad ones;
Mekton
Cyber Punk
Rifts
Merp
Heroes Unlimited
Ghost Busters
Marvel supers

 

[Greatwyrm]

Really, a good gaming group can make a bad rpg a heck of a lot of fun.

Several years ago, I played Traveller with a group in the next town over. I had a really good time and the adventures were pretty engaging. I recently picked up a copy of Traveller for myself and soon realized I pretty much hate everything about the system itself. Obviously, the gm and players made the game.

I thankfully don't have any anecdotal evidence to this, but I'm fairly certain that a system I know I enjoy would not be as much fun with a poor gm or a difficult gaming group.

In short, the human factor is important.

 

[Henry]

Gary, I will admit, that there is a difference between "bad" and "obscene". Games such as FATAL and "White warriors", while some rules could have possibly been useable, the agenda and taste of the game make them unplayable by virtue of being nauseating.

However, for Paranoia, and Boot Hill, some games are fun just for the act of being a "beer and pretzels" game. They COULD be played for longer, with some help, or even through sheer personality of the players who play them, but they were some of the first RPG's used as "time fillers." If you have an afternoon, and want a game that was just FUN, they were perfect. As it is now, Computer RPG's fill that niche, so these games all but dropped off the face of the planet. However, I know from playing Boot Hill and hearing a lot about Paranoia from fellow gamers, I know that to redesign these games to that point might have made them less popular than they were. As it is, they paved the way for "party games" in my opinion.

 

[Desdichado]

Still, an element that was missing from the previous discussion are those games that may not be terrible from a game perspective, but which fail utterly to fulfill their stated purpose. In my opinion, I.C.E.'s Middle-earth Roleplaying is one such game: the system is kinda clunky, but not really horrible. However, it does absolutely nothing to contribute to a feel of gaming in Tolkien's world, and actively discourages such a feel with many of its mechanics.

 

[MerricB]

My take on "bad" and "good" rpgs is this: A bad rpg is one where the rules are not suited for the tone of the game. When the rules detract from the experience of the game, it isn't good.

Thus, Paranoid 2E was a good game with light-hearted rules and a light-hearted (if paranoid and treacherous) game.

Call of Cthulhu I actually consider a good game by those lights - sure you spent a certain amount of time properly detailing your character; but that meant you were more involved with it and thus more affected by what was to come.

GURPS is (IMO) a bad roleplaying game when used for fantasy heroic gaming in the style of D&D. It is a good rpg for a more gritty campaign.

Cheers!