Games you were turned off of and why

[mhacdebhandia]

I didn't know anything about the game when I played. I quickly found out and never played it again. Pretty simple (I thought).

Well, sure, but . . . are you saying that no-one told you that the game was about playing vampires?

Because otherwise I still kinda want to know why someone who dislikes playing bad guys and thinks vampires should be bad guys sat down to play a vampire.

NWOD-I liked the OWOD system, this one is sort of weaker and the story isnt even interesting, aside from the one in the core book about the Angel being found on the moon, that was cool but the other books are lacking seriously in meta-plot.

It's a shame you didn't try to find anything out about the game before you looked at it, then. The absolute lack of a metaplot - and the freezing of "Now" at a single point in time which will never be advanced - was one of the most highly-discussed changes between the old and new Worlds of Darkness prior to release.

(Mostly because it was one of the few things we knew. These days, people bitch and moan about how Mage: the Awakening isn't Mage: the Ascension with a fresh coat of paint, as they erroneously perceive the other two games to be compared with the "original".)

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Still it gives you some ideas about BMI and a couple other things.

Nope, it's incorrect in every aspect and completely irredeemable!

 

[Breakdaddy]

I never could get the general feel of WoD stuff, particularly V: TM. I bought it, read it, and even tried to run it once, but I guess we weren't pissed off at the world enough to play properly. It's still sitting on a shelf around here someplace.

WEG Star Wars. Not my cup of tea, mainly because I don't enjoy dice pool games in general (Shadowrun being the exception). We played a couple of times and found the character power level to be far below that of the ones portrayed in the movies, even after some judicious power ups and several sessions. Not a bad game, but not one I'd play again.

 

[Tolen Mar]

For me, I have two basic sets I really dislike, both come after having attempted to play them repeatedly (and they overlap considerably):

Any game with dice pools. [sarcasm] I just love how the higher skill you have, the more likely it is you'll screw it up.[/sarcasm]

World of Darkness: Part of it is the dice pool thing, and the other is that all of the people I've played it with (and yes, Ive tried multiple versions) just wierd me out too much.

I also dislike pre-d20 DnD, but it isnt so irredeemable that I wont play if thats what my group wanted to do. In fact, I think I'd prefer to go back to 1E if I had the choice.

Paranoia remains among my favorites. True, 90% of the games devolve into a shoot-first style game, but BSing my way into the clear is the most fun. Ask my friends, they'll tell you how creative I can be in that regard.

And finally, Star Fleet Battles. Part of me wants to defend it. I mean its the one non-RPG I've spent the most time playing. However, I just dont have the patience anymore for multihour games. I sold my entire collection once. Then slowly rebought it. Now I dont play it. I can handle the complexity, but these days I just dont have the time to spend an hour or more outside of the game building fleets, getting (or printing) copies of all the forms I'll need, and getting everything set up, just to have to play a turn or two on game day, write down all the counter positions and hope to be able to pick it up again later. It isnt actually that hard to get your head around, it just takes patience. Its very good for a gripping tactical fight, but only if both players are on the same page rules-wise (which takes a bit of time to accomplish). I think I'll stick to Car Wars (and not that junk they are releasing now, I'm talking the compendium and the catalog from hell). Quicker, more fun to just throw together, and it has its own vehicle creation rules that are reliable.

 

[wingsandsword]

2nd ed. Notes:

1) There are no rules for limiting the levels of druids as such.

No. Now, I didn't have the books right next to me so my levels on Monks and Druids were off, but now I do: and in the 2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook, there were strict limits on Druid progression based on the character level.

Only 9 12th level "Druids" per geographic region (up to 3 or 4 regions per continent) and druids must duel to take the place of another to rise in level (a relic of "name level" in 2e, druids weren't "druids" until 12th level, they were "Initiates" until then). 3 "archdruids" per geographic region, again with duelling to level up. 14th level "Great Druid" is unique per region, again with duelling for position. The 15th level Grand Druid is the only 15th level Druid in the world (and also gets 6 spells of each level), then you get into Heirophant Druids.

Druid restrictions on levelling up based on only a finite number of people at each level and you have to duel for position, much like the Monk restriction, is a huge pain. The (1e) Monk was was much bigger, since they had to start duelling much earlier. I forgot about Assassins going to 15th level (and only 1 15th level Assassin), but that was a problem too.

I do still stand by my statement that the NWP's and Thief Skills systems were clunky and every time I think about AD&D I can't help but realize there is a better way to do it all. Spells & Magic monks were monks in name-only, not anything that should be called monk, and even with the optional experience point penalties the level limits were downright brutal in a long term game.

Let's keep this from becoming an edition war, suffice it to say that things like these made me dump AD&D like a hot potato when 3e came along.

 

[Particle_Man]

No. Now, I didn't have the books right next to me so my levels on Monks and Druids were off, but now I do: and in the 2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook, there were strict limits on Druid progression based on the character level.

I forgot about Assassins going to 15th level (and only 1 15th level Assassin), but that was a problem too.

Let's keep this from becoming an edition war, suffice it to say that things like these made me dump AD&D like a hot potato when 3e came along.

1) My bad about the druids. I guess I have "edition fugue" and transferred one set of rules to another edition in my head.

2) I have always wanted to try a dual-classed 13th assassin/14th illusionist in 1st ed. That way, no pressure to go higher as an assassin by taking on someone tougher than you. I guess 2nd ed. has an Assassin kit for various classes, now I think on it.

3) I don't want to start an edition war. Just wanted to clarify a few things. Thanks for clarifying my clarification.

 

[Ironclad]

WOD: For me, I think it was the attitude of the people who tended to play it. Too much pretention and angst. "Oh you play those OTHER games... well, we're REAL role-players". I tried it a few times at a couple of conventions and just couldn't get the difference.

A friend described it as all as "Sensitive New Age Guy-elves". (Better, immortal, stronger, more mystical than mere humans...and this time with angst)

The Original Babylon 5 game: I picked it up as I'm a fanboy, but a truly unfathomable unworkable system.

Mind you... d20 is the borg of gaming... you will assimilate, resistance is futile - d20 Cthulhu, d20 Star Wars etc and I think the product definitely fails in improving on the original in both of these cases.

 

[The Shaman]

edit: if people do not like DnD 3.x, why are they here? There are plenty of forums and messageboards and email groups for other games. Being here merely to natter seems a waste of time.

Because ENWorld isn't just a 3e Dungeons and Dragons board anymore?

Because this is the General RPG Discussion forum for ENWorld?

Because many who enjoy fantasy games of one sort or another, but who may not play D&D, may find common ground in terms of adventures or fantasy tropes that have nothing to do with d20 mechanics?

 

[wingsandsword]

The Original Babylon 5 game: I picked it up as I'm a fanboy, but a truly unfathomable unworkable system.

Yow, I forgot about that one.

The Babylon Project: I also picked it up as a fanboy, being hugely into B5 at the time it came out. Enthusiasm turned into overwhelming disappointment rapidly. The mechanics were incomprehensible (I owned the book for well over a year before understanding the basic task-resolution mechanic). No starship combat system, terrible rules for playing aliens, absolutely no way to play a telepath stronger than P5 as a PC, the game insisted you must play before the construction of Babylon 5, during the construction of the predecessor stations and later eras were strictly off limits (thus no support for Rangers, White Stars, Shadows and Vorlons, and most of the things people really groove on in B5), and not only did it have no characters from the show for comparison or use as NPC's (or pictures from the show other than the cover), there was a little disclaimer that no character in the book was meant to depict any character from the TV show (what kind of crippled license was it made under?). It does probably hold the record for me for a game I went from totally enthusiastic for to utterly disgusted with in minimum time.

 

[Thotas]

The original Top Secret game has some rule conceptions that really don't work for me, SI was better, but Spycraft looks good and Spycraft 2.0 looks even better.

Not an RPG, but I truly hate "Risk". If I'm playing a game and notice that it structurally models down to being the same as "Risk", I get out as soon as I can.

I'm told that the Palladium game I played in was greatly modified. So I won't say I don't like Palladium, but I'll admit aprehension.

My dislike of Anne Ricified vampires is a guarantee you'll never see me in any WoD game, sorry, despite having no idea what the game mechanics are like.