Games you were turned off of and why

Imret · Dec 3, 2005

2nd Edition D&D works fine if you ignore everything but the three core books, any monsters you want, and your favorite setting. It can really feel a lot like what people tell me Hackmaster is like if you ignore all the awful rules.

Gundark · Dec 3, 2005

Rockwolf66 said:
FATAL: the less said the better.

I googled this and went to the site and downloaded the game (they have a free download while they playtest the current rules)

Let me say that Rifts is divinely inspired holy writ compared to that game....I feel that my IQ has slipped a Stardard deviation after skimming the PDF. I plead with those of you out there who are considering looking this game up....don't... the game is really that bad. Now if you'll excuse me my brain is leaking and my eyes are burning.

mythusmage · Dec 3, 2005

jdrakeh said:
Only one of these games is wildly popular, while the other two are widely maligned. What's even more bizarre is that one of these games actually has internally consistent mechanics that make sense (both conceptually and mathematically) - but it isn't the one that's wildly popular. So it isn't internally consistent mechanics that make Rifts what it is, nor is it the lack thereof. And it isn't the setting itself. So what is it? Does it really come down to brand recognition?

It's simple, Kevin does it better than the other guys.

I haven't read Senzar, but I have read Synnibar. Raven C.S. McCracken is actually a fairly decent fellow with a good sense of humor. Kevin, on the other hand, can be prickly. But Raven doesn't present things as well as Kevin does. In short, Kevin does a better snow job.

You get right down to it, Kevin has a better handle on reaching kids. He presents things in a way they can grasp. Raven doesn't. Raven aims his product at an adult audience, an audience that's really not interested in what Raven considers fun. Kevin aims his product at an audience that likes what Kevin thinks is fun. Kevin understands his audience, Raven doesn't.

Then you have the fact Rifts is better organized than Synnibar. Yes, Rifts does wander all over the land scape, but its not an aimlesss rambling. In all the gonzo powergaming there is a purpose, a goal. Synnibar has the gonzo powergaming, but without a real purpose. Both games are hodge-podge affairs, but Rifts at least provides toe tags.

Presentation and organization (as haphazard as that is) are what gives Rifts its advantage over Synnibar. But, given the choice I'd sooner play Synnibar. Why? Because it has one thing Rifts doesn't, it's playful. It's gonzo, it's confusing, the mechanics have more problems than the U.S. tax code, but reading through the thing you get the impression Raven had fun with it. If F.A.T.A.L. is the Manos, Hands of Fate of RPGs, then Synnibar is the Plan 9 From Outer Space.

mhacdebhandia · Dec 3, 2005

Dannyalcatraz said:
White Wolf...I love the games themselves- good flavor with an acceptible system. Why do I hate the line? Because they don't integrate their products. We tried mixing Mages with Werewolves and Vampires...it just didn't work.

The new editions may be more compatible with each other, but I'm not spending my dollars to find out.

Well, for the record, it is. It's a little more expensive - in that there's a core World of Darkness rulebook which creates "normal" human characters, and each of the Big Three supernatural gamelines layers a template over that normal baseline. By both starting from the same baseline and being designed to be compatible, all of the new World of Darkness games facilitate crossovers as easy as pie.

In fact, pretty soon they're releasing World of Darkness: Chicago, which is intended to be a setting for crossover games - or for games with "normal" PCs running into the supernatural elements of the World of Darkness.

My entry for this thread is, um, Nightbreed^H^H^H^H^Hbane, which I guess used the Palladium/RIFTS system? Pure crap. Maybe if I'd played it when I was fourteen, rather than when I was eighteen?

Psion · Dec 3, 2005

Gundark said:
Let me say that Rifts is divinely inspired holy writ compared to that game....I feel that my IQ has slipped a Stardard deviation after skimming the PDF. I plead with those of you out there who are considering looking this game up....don't... the game is really that bad. Now if you'll excuse me my brain is leaking and my eyes are burning.

I try to convince people not to mention THE GAME THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED to prevent this sort of thing from happening. But no. Nobody listens...

Psychic Warrior · Dec 3, 2005

Hackmaster - despite what its adherents claim the in 'jokes' ruin this game.
AD&D 2E - drove me not only from D&D but RPGs in general.
Vampire:the Masquerade (I think it was 2E) - never, never, never again (although i kind of like the simplicity of the new World of Darkness core book). Vampires are bad guys. I don't like being the bad guy.
That's, honestly, about it. Most of the games mentioned in this thread I have played at one time or another and, while they each had their flaws, I can't say I was 'turned off' of any of them.

mhacdebhandia · Dec 3, 2005

Psychic Warrior said:
Vampire:the Masquerade (I think it was 2E) - never, never, never again (although i kind of like the simplicity of the new World of Darkness core book). Vampires are bad guys. I don't like being the bad guy.

I'm not picking on you here - it's found elsethread, too - but this doesn't seem like a reason to be turned off. It's a great reason to not play! To me, though, "it turned me off" suggests that you thought you'd be interested or enjoy it but you weren't or didn't. Like my experience with Nightbane - a game on that premise could be fun, it's just the game that sucked.

If you think vampires have to be bad guys, and you don't like playing bad guys, what possessed you to give Vampire: the Masquerade a shot? Same question goes to the people who don't like supers as a genre and nominated supers games; I'm baffled.

diaglo · Dec 3, 2005

Coplen said:
Ouch. You just had to mention the worst game ever, well, Synabbar comes close.

for me it would have to be d02. my hat of which knows no limits.

it fails on every level... yadda, yadda, yadda.

i try and i try and i try, but it just ain't the same game as the D&D i love.

Arashi Ravenblade · Dec 3, 2005

BESM- there where only a few things to even bother putting your points into, and everyone else noticed to so everyones characters ended up with the same powers.

Inominae-Horrible, the story was horrible and the system was horrible, there was no reason to ever put any poibnts into anything other than your physical body as no one i ever played with ever used the other realms of existence, Dream and Ethreal?

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.

Shadow Run-looked through this book at a friends house and just said to myself so it's basically an older version of D20 modern except not cool. Sorry it just looked boring.

Iron Claw-I hate furries and anthropeople, sorry it grosses and freaks me out. Though strangly i have no problem with the Ninja Turtles, Ah maybe it's because i grew up with them.

Bardsandsages · Dec 3, 2005

Rifts. I love the concept and the idea behind the game mechanics, but in practice the rules are too unwieldy, and you need like four dozen books to actually play, as things cross reference each other without actually telling you where they cross reference.

Then I found out their actually is an index for the damn books....but it's a separate book in and of itself that you have to BUY. That was the end of rifts for me.