Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7953982" data-attributes="member: 4937">A good RPG will have a compelling setting, well conceived gameplay, and be mechanically sound especially in its fundamentals. The RPGs that have impressed me over the years are D&amp;D 3.0, Call of Cthulhu (4e, 5e), WEG Star Wars (1e, 2e), and Chill 2e. I'll happily play or run those games.I'm familiar with a lot of game and have played several not in the above list, but they either lack a compelling setting (to me, tastes vary), or more critically they have no clear idea what their gameplay is or how to make it a group activity, or they are fundamentally mechanically unsound and fixing them would be equivalent to making a new game (I have a lot of very particular peeves about mechanics).Pet peeves about gameplay: No description of how to play the game. Gameplay as described by the book always has examples featuring a single player. Gameplay as described by book doesn't match game play achieved by the mechanics. Minigames are generally solo activities without compelling cooperation.Pet peeves about mechanics: Skills are neither discrete or space filling. Skills are too narrowly defined.&nbsp; Player choice is actually window dressing.&nbsp; Resolution is too random.&nbsp; Computation of difficulty/chance of success takes a computer.&nbsp; Achieving results through system mastery is counter-intuitive.&nbsp; Mechanics rely heavily on GM whim, illusionism or the expectation that the GM will selectively ignore the results the system calls for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7953982, member: 4937"] A good RPG will have a compelling setting, well conceived gameplay, and be mechanically sound especially in its fundamentals. The RPGs that have impressed me over the years are D&D 3.0, Call of Cthulhu (4e, 5e), WEG Star Wars (1e, 2e), and Chill 2e. I'll happily play or run those games. I'm familiar with a lot of game and have played several not in the above list, but they either lack a compelling setting (to me, tastes vary), or more critically they have no clear idea what their gameplay is or how to make it a group activity, or they are fundamentally mechanically unsound and fixing them would be equivalent to making a new game (I have a lot of very particular peeves about mechanics). Pet peeves about gameplay: No description of how to play the game. Gameplay as described by the book always has examples featuring a single player. Gameplay as described by book doesn't match game play achieved by the mechanics. Minigames are generally solo activities without compelling cooperation. Pet peeves about mechanics: Skills are neither discrete or space filling. Skills are too narrowly defined. Player choice is actually window dressing. Resolution is too random. Computation of difficulty/chance of success takes a computer. Achieving results through system mastery is counter-intuitive. Mechanics rely heavily on GM whim, illusionism or the expectation that the GM will selectively ignore the results the system calls for. [/QUOTE]

Verification