What RPG did you want to love, but just couldn't get into?

[Celebrim]

Fantasy Craft.

I've said many times, it is without question the absolute best distillation / re-invention of 3.x era D&D produced, period.

It's definitely different. But I can also see why if you liked the direction it was going in, that you'd prefer things that went much further in that direction.

 

[Gradine]

I've got a couple of answers. My instant instinct was Dungeon World, which felt like it should have been engineered in a lab for me, specifically, but seemed liked it mashed together my least favorite bits from each side of it's chocolate-and-peanut-butter pairing.

FATE is next. I actually really liked the idea of the in medias res character building, but it ended up getting way too crunchy for the story-first vibe it seemed like it was going for. I don't think I've ever seen a game more perfectly designed to encourage playing the character sheet as opposed to the character. There's just too much there, there.

I did run FATE Accelerated once to see if I would like it better. My experience can be summed up thusly:

 

[aramis erak]

Alternity. The Dark Matter setting in particular is fantastic, and even the default Star Drive setting was not bad, and the game itself seemed interesting, but it was just never been my cup of tea.

Star*Drive was just a Traveller imitation. A really well done one.

 

[Bagpuss]

I have that trouble with most of Modiphius' 2d20 games. I've wanted to love several but the system just stops me cold. Of their stuff, the Star Trek game is probably the biggest let down. For several reasons.

At it's core the 2d20 system is actually okay, it's just overly comlicated with the adds-ons and subsystems both Dune and Start Trek introduce.

For me Fantasy Flight's Star Wars. The dice that could inspire interesting events seemed like a great idea, but the building dice pools just wasted time, and it put a lot of pressure on the GM to improvise some different complication each time the dice demanded.

 

[Bagpuss]

Out of curiosity, was it 1st or 2nd edition? Cause they made drastic changes to game rules and mechanics in 2e, so much so that it's like whole new game in same setting.

For me it was the 2nd Edition that killed it. The big kickstarter with the fantastic art, then bizzare changes to the setting some of which seemed they were there to remove sexism but at the same time that removed core motivations (you know fighting against it, or being an evil sexist) from some of the characters in the setting.

Then the resolution mechanic seemed to change most encounters into a cake walk unless the GM could come up with an increasing number of complications for the players to deal with on the fly. Also the clearly unbalanced firearm damage meant any character skilled with a brace of pistols could instantly win pretty much any fight.

Really wanted to like it but the more I read the less I did, and when it actually got played, my players quickly realised it could have done with significantly more playtesting and feedback.

 

[aramis erak]

For me it was the 2nd Edition that killed it. The big kickstarter with the fantastic art, then bizzare changes to the setting some of which seemed they were there to remove sexism but at the same time that removed core motivations (you know fighting against it, or being an evil sexist) from some of the characters in the setting.

Then the resolution mechanic seemed to change most encounters into a cake walk unless the GM could come up with an increasing number of complications for the players to deal with on the fly. Also the clearly unbalanced firearm damage meant any character skilled with a brace of pistols could instantly win pretty much any fight.

Really wanted to like it but the more I read the less I did, and when it actually got played, my players quickly realised it could have done with significantly more playtesting and feedback.

I wanted to like 2e as well... but due to font choices, found it literally unreadable. I had to copy and paste the text into a text editor to be able to read it.

 

[GrimCo]

Me 2. I loved and played 1ed 7th sea to great deal. It's my go to system for adventures set in Age of sail. What killed it for me wasnt lore or fluff of the setting ( never really cared to much about it in the first place ). It was changes to the system. Sword schools were unique, every magic system was unique. It was crunchy in a good, rewarding way. 2ed streamlined that, but it killed uniqeness in process. It went more narrative driven route which is cool, but not for me. So, 2ed 7th sea is for sure on the list of games i wanted to love, but just couldn't.

 

[Clint_L]

The Alien RPG. I love the franchise and setting, but the game was so lethal that we found it hard to get attached to any of our characters. Like, sure, that's what the films are like, but it made the RPG feel more like a board game.

 

[Black Dougal]

Cypher System/Numenera.

Love the fluff, love the idea of ...

I am a [Descriptor] [Type] who [Focus].

For example: “I am a Clever Explorer who Explores Dark Places.” The Descriptor tells us what you’re like, the Type establishes your broad mechanical chassis, and the Focus tells us what makes you distinctive.

However my players and I found the actual mechanical system itself to be underwhelming and torturous. We couldn't wait for the sessions to end.

 

[dbm]

You can see the through-line of this concept into D&D 5e, which Monte was lead designer of in the early days.

Think species+background as descriptor, class as type, with subclass as focus.

It is an elegant idea, and now in lots of places.