Games you were turned off of and why

[Conaill]

1) GURPS. I think the GM put me off. Character generation was going well, but the GM insisted we take 5 flaws for 1 point each "for background". I decided my character thought squirrels were servants of the devil, and would kill them on sight (anyone who's seen Blackadder III might recognise this concept).

Anyway, he decided that this was actually a 15 point flaw (major delusion) - but having to play out that flaw would make the character impossible to work with. It was obvious that I had to have a character meet his narrow criteria, rather than have one as flexible as the rules claimed.

Uhm... so which part of this put you off of GURPS?

For the record, I think your GM was probably correct that "squirrels are servants of the devil and have to be killed on sight" would qualify as a delusion. Isn't there an example delusion in the book along those lines? 15 points does sound a bit much, though. For that level of disad, you could reasonably be expected to suddenly run off after a squirrel in the middle of a real combat, thinking that the squirrel was a greater threat to the party!

So... were you annoyed that the GM didn't allow you to play a squirrel killer? That you were forced into picking 5 "quirks"? That you wouldn't allow you to take more disads than was reasonable? That he refused to let you make a silly character?

 

[BaldHero]

The Ravenloft setting beyond the modules. It was the DM that was the problem, but it was so crappy that i just couldnt get into it.

I played one half session of BattleTech the rpg and made up an excuse to leave the game. Not getting into mechs and blowing things up was not looking promising.

I made up a gurps pc once for a game that was described as rifts like, i wanted to play a pirate that could smell land from five miles away. The game never took place, but the staggering number of character options was overwhelming.

Rifts was too wide in scope, and each player in my group wanted to be an occ from six different source books. that went poorly. Later we understood that the system was flawed, and dropped it from our list of things to play.

The Batman rpg/DC heroes. What the hell is an AP?

V:TM seems like a good game, but in my experience it is always either really good, or horrible. i feel this has to do with the people playing the game. if you have a good group, good game, but more often than not, i find myself let down.

D20 modern, hated it. No real reason, just a matter of taste.

Shaintar Immortal Legends. OMG this was boring. Most baddest ever. Ever. It was just like every other fantasy setting ever, but i had to learn new rules, and it had cat people. I HATE cat people. there was nothing about this game that i couldnt get somehwere else better. i had a good gm, and the story was okay, but the game setting was just so...average.

Forgotten Realms: I just dont like the sheer overwhelming number of heroes that already exist. I felt incidental.
never realized i didnt like so many games/settings.

 

[eyebeams]

"Off the cuff" magic still exists in M:tA, it's a little harder to do, and the pre-defined list exists to clarify what could be done with different levels of magic.

Do you mean harder to find out how to do it, or harder to pull off than before? 'Cause both of these are incorrect, but in different ways. Magic is not inherently harder to adjudicate than it used to be. The old system was also defined by pre-set Effects and general priciples (the forerunner of Awakening's practices), but there were fewer of them. And while you do enjoy a higher dice pool for rotes, casting effective spontaneous spells is still statistically easier than in the old game, where starting mages had a spellcasting dice pool that was 1-3 dice, compared with the 4-8 dice for competent characters in every other task. The old game also didn't make any mathematical sense, because it made powerful spells statistically weaker than low ranked ones.

What is true is that freeform magic is not as emphasized as before, since the new game is very much designed to be something you can get into gradually, learning a small powerset before grokking the system well enough to step up to freeform.

 

[eyebeams]

Now, as to my own list:

* Out of the box D&D of any stripe has always left me cold, unless I'm playing a 3.x one shot. For a campaign, it's serious house rules or it's a waste of my time. The game is eminently fixable, though. Same with baseline D20Modern (and the same with it being moddable, too).

* Intensive point-based systems are based on fallacies regarding game balance and delay the start of play. The only exception is BESM, which keeps it nice and simple. Even Tri-Stat lost me with PMV rules.

* Ars Magica was a fine game until it got hijacked by fans who were uninterested in getting more people to play the game or, really, playing it themselves. Now it's a game you talk about instead.

* Changeling annoys me. Too many incoherent influences stuck together.

* The new Mind's Eye Theatre rules are for hardcore Camarilla players, are too complicated, and are thus, not my cup ot tea.

 

[Dark Psion]

Let's see First up would have to be Magic: The Gathering. I played it from the begining, but I was just errata-ed out of having fun.

Star Trek (Decipher): It is so close to being D20. It's the no multi-classing that really gets me. I was really hopeing those rumors of Mongoose getting this and that they would be using their Babylon 5 game as a base system.

Dragonlance: Saga System: You will beg for that bucket of d6s.

Gamma World D20: If the plan was to suck all the fun out of the Gamma World setting, they succeded.

I have to say I have a love/ hate relationship with GURPS. I hate the actual system, but love the sourcebooks. I just picked up Banestorm 4th and have decided I have new setting for an Iron Heroes/ Psychic Handbook/ Mythic Magic setting

I do wish GURPS would get back to the sourcebooks and lets not do them all in hardcover.

 

[Kid Socrates]

The main one I never could get into was Wraith. I mean, at any point does the outlook in that game not SUCK? "Okay, I'm dead, and the world is ugly, and... yep, still dead."

Granted, it's probably not good to play the events leading UP to becoming a Wraith. Or a Vampire. Boy, were we dragged kicking and screaming into the Kindred.

 

[radferth]

I've played some really bad systems (Palladium, GURPS, at least I don't care for them) that still made for great campaigns because the DM was good. Of course, no system can save a bad DM. I know a lot of people love GURPS, but with one notable exception, every time I have played it combat results in an endless series of called shots to the head. But games that really turn me off are ones in which players with more money to spend have a definite advantage. This includes collectable anything games, some miniatures games, and late 2nd ed D&D. 3.5 is starting to get there, but there is such a hodgepodge of supplements available I haven't had the "buy this character supplement for a powerup" problem I had DMing 2nd ed in the early 90's.