What is, in your opinion, the single WORST RPG ever made, and why is it so bad?

[Jahydin]

Just because a game does not work for you doesn't mean that it's a bad game.

I too wish the thread title was reworded slightly, but I think most people posting are in agreement with this.

I know when I post it gets exhausting to constantly have to type "In my opinion", "In my experience", "Personally", etc., so when I read others' opinions, I charitably assume those phrases are implied (unless specifically contradicted, of course).

I don't know what the worst RPG ever made is, but I suspect that this is one of the worst threads that I have ever had the displeasure of reading. This thread is seemingly dedicated to people crapping on other people's yums in the most insulting manner possible. It is not a good feeling.

I wouldn't take others' opinions so personally. What we like/dislike is what makes us all different and interesting. You know what you like, who cares what someone else thinks, right?

Negative feedback can lead to all sorts of constructive conversation. Houserules, new RPGs, and clarification of misunderstood concepts for instance.

That said now, there isn't a single RPG you read/played that you really didn't like?

 

[The Soloist]

I played a French RPG called Légendes in 1983. It was extremely simulationist, to the point where you had to tell the GM at what angle you shot your arrow and hoped it hit, taking into account the direction of the wind and the distance to the target. It was infuriating. We didn't finish the session.

 

[Aldarc]

I know when I post it gets exhausting to constantly have to type "In my opinion", "In my experience", "Personally", etc., so when I read others' opinions, I charitably assume those phrases are implied (unless specifically contradicted, of course).

I wish that same sort of charitable readings was given towards these games, but that is hardly the impression that I get when reading people talk about these games in this thread.

I wouldn't take others' opinions so personally. What we like/dislike is what makes us all different and interesting. You know what you like, who cares what someone else thinks, right?

People are welcome to like what they like without crapping on each other's yums, trash talking games and designers, or believing that their opinions represesnt an objective reality about the quality of these games. See image in spoiler below.

Negative feedback can lead to all sorts of constructive conversation. Houserules, new RPGs, and clarification of misunderstood concepts for instance.

And I gave my negative feedback about this thread and how I felt while reading this thread.

That said now, there isn't a single RPG you read/played that you really didn't like?

There are a games that I dislike and games that I wished did things differently, but I rarely if ever think that they are objectively bad games. It's important to recognize that not every game is written for my various gaming preferences. There were also times when a game didn't work for me at first but then I realized that I was approaching the game the wrong way, almost like trying to play chess like checkers. Other times, I completely misunderstood the game and what it was asking me to do.

And honestly, I think that there is enough negativity and toxicity in this hobby without needing to throw more fuel on that fire.

I post this image from time to time in this forum. I was thinking of it all while reading through this thread:

Spoiler

That is where I am in my life, and that is also why I think that this thread is toxic.

 

[Gradine]

I wish that same sort of charitable readings was given towards these games, but that is hardly the impression that I get when reading people talk about these games in this thread.

There is a significant value in talking through the things we dislike as much if not moreso than talking through the things we like.

With some exceptions early upthread I have felt that this thread has been extremely respectful and understanding that what we're talking about is what we don't like rather than what is objectively bad. There have been a number of times in this thread where one person has disliked a game someone else liked (or vice-versa) and folks have reacted with curiosity and inquiry rather than the disrespect and toxicity you have been projecting onto the thread.

That is where I am in my life, and that is also why I think that this thread is toxic.

This post is exactly the thing you are railing against. We are having a peaceful, respectful conversation about the things we dislike, and yet here you come in, disparaging people, yucking our yum, and then call us toxic?

 

[Deset Gled]

And honestly, I think that there is enough negativity and toxicity in this hobby without needing to throw more fuel on that fire.

I post this image from time to time in this forum. I was thinking of it all while reading through this thread:

Spoiler

View attachment 343918

That is where I am in my life, and that is also why I think that this thread is toxic.

Some things are just opinions and preferences, but some games are also objectively different from others in ways that are considered prefereable to almost everyone in the community. Just because some people struggle with the difference between opinions and facts shouldn't mean we're not allowed to discuss the ideas, concepts, and history.

Not every thread is made for you. Instead of publicly complaining about a discussion you don't like, try thinking "this is not for me" and moving on.

 

[Aldarc]

Some things are just opinions and preferences, but some games are also objectively different from others in ways that are considered prefereable to almost everyone in the community. Just because some people struggle with the difference between opinions and facts shouldn't mean we're not allowed to discuss the ideas, concepts, and history.

You are mistaken. I'm not trying to dissuade you from discussing "the ideas, concepts, and history" nor am I trying to dissuade you from criticizing games you dislike either.

EDIT: IMHO, there was a good criticism earlier in this thread of the Cypher System. It dealt with the psychology and feel of a player spending Effort only to roll high enough that the player could have succeeded without spending Effort. I think that sort of criticism is useful feedback.

Sometimes, however, feedback comes across like some reviews of recipes in the comment section that read, "This cake recipe was terrible! I replaced the sugar in this cake recipe with salted carrots and baked at 200 degrees Fahrenheit rather than Celsius, and the cake turned out awful!"

 

[Kannik]

Ironically, they designed and produced an Aliens boardgame, using an even more cut-down version of the SACS, and it worked really, really well. It was fast and exciting, with important decisions to make every turn, e.g. trying to judge whether to use all your actions to have a good chance of hitting an alien, but risk being left behind, or take an action to move and an action to shoot with a much lower chance of hitting.

Oh interesting... I never knew the 'tactical' Aliens boardgame that the members of the Strategy Club in university played hundreds of hundreds of times (it was the go-to game to fill time) was made by the same company. Clearly the group loved it, even though they mostly lost over and over again.

 

[nerfherder]

Oh interesting... I never knew the 'tactical' Aliens boardgame that the members of the Strategy Club in university played hundreds of hundreds of times (it was the go-to game to fill time) was made by the same company. Clearly the group loved it, even though they mostly lost over and over again.

Leading Edge Games. Yeah, there's a pretty good review of it here:
I'd love to see an updated version with the same rules, but improved components.


Meanwhile, the Aliens RPG had the following useful guidance on skills "Most are self-explanatory":

 

[Thomas Shey]

I too wish the thread title was reworded slightly, but I think most people posting are in agreement with this.

I know when I post it gets exhausting to constantly have to type "In my opinion", "In my experience", "Personally", etc., so when I read others' opinions, I charitably assume those phrases are implied (unless specifically contradicted, of course).

I do also think there's a difference between most of the participants who've been civil about it and presented a reason or two why they think so (showing why it might not be bad for others) and people who just dunk on a game (which there have been at least a few of).

 

[Composer99]

I don't think it's impossible for games to actually be badly designed, even if they have people who like them. The ET Atari game springs to mind. So does the recent Gollum game. (Personally, I would also count Monopoly as such a game as well.)

That said, with few exceptions (such as the games excluded from consideration in the OP), it often hard to discern the difference between "this game is actually bad" and "I just don't like this game" as an individual person. I think these kinds of discussions are helpful as long as the participants are willing to keep this kind of distinction in mind.

Edit to add: a post downthread has reminded me that there is also a difference between design intent and implementation! E.g. ET on Atari is a bad game because of its implementation, but its core design is similar to other games that would not be considered "bad" at the time.