Why Do You Hate An RPG System?

[Arilyn]

Hiya!

I can see how someone could come to that conclusion, and I'm not disagreeing with you on it. Definitely have seen my fair share of "genre/immersion breaking antics" from Players... usually not on purpose.

But when all is said and done...this IS a thread about "hating" some RPG system or aspect. By definition such strong emotions aren't typically rational. Hence... my post about my dislike of Amber as a whole, but the whole mechanical system built around Player/GM dynamic in that game just rubs me the wrong way. A game where if the Players talk and work together, they are actually "breaking the rules", so to say, is just...well...not my thing.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I've never played Amber, but it's been these aspects of the game that kept me away from trying trying it. I think I'd be turning it more cooperative!

 

[Maxperson]

I've never played Amber, but it's been these aspects of the game that kept me away from trying trying it. I think I'd be turning it more cooperative!

That dynamic comes from the book series. The princes of Amber and Chaos weren't exactly trusting of one another, and they all had plots and more plots.

 

[Arilyn]

That dynamic comes from the book series. The princes of Amber and Chaos weren't exactly trusting of one another, and they all had plots and more plots.

Oh, I know. I read and enjoyed the series, and I understand why the game is the way it is, and it's probably well designed. Just doesn't appeal to me as an RPG.

 

[MGibster]

I've never played Amber, but it's been these aspects of the game that kept me away from trying trying it. I think I'd be turning it more cooperative!

I was in a group that attempted to play Amber and the 4 other players all decided they wanted to be #1 in Psyche. My character ended up #1 in Warfare, Strength, and Endurance. For whatever reason that campaign never made it past character generation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've never played Amber, but it's been these aspects of the game that kept me away from trying trying it. I think I'd be turning it more cooperative!

The game somewhat encourages (to say quite a bit) inter-player rivalry.

And its the usual strength and weakness of almost pure narrative systems; if everyone is on the same page, and the GM is comfortable making constant judgment calls, many likely out of his areas of knowledge, it can be excellent.

I'm super-unconvinced that describes more than a pretty small subset of groups.

 

[AtomicPope]

I will say that Shadowrun Anarchy is just about everything I actually want in a Shadowrun game, without the mess of rules to wade through. And without people spending an hour planning on how exactly they kick down the door and kill everyone, followed by the hour of people rolling a hundred d6's to resolve it.

For my part, and this ties to Shadowrun definitely, is that I can't stand double-indemnity in resolution. That is to say, if I attack a monster and have to roll against their roll to hit, then roll again against their roll to do damage.

I didn't like any iteration of Shadowrun until I got to playtest Anarchy. We were playing Shadowrun and when our DM was editing and writing for the Anarchy playtest he converted us over and we never looked back. Our characters just improved. They weren't "better" just more consistent in their design. Long gone were the days of rolling 40d6 and we were all happy to see them go.

 

[John Dallman]

Have you ever read the rules or played [Amber diceless]? But we attempted to even make characters once. During character creation, the rules SPECIFICALLY tell you, the GM, to try and cause Player strife so that they try and "compete against each other" to try and get the "best/highest stat". There are no dice in the game...stats are done via "Bidding" on them.

The rules also tell you that it's a game that requires deviousness and pre-planning, but the examples are . . . like children trying to be cunning before they've learned to tell lies. The campaign I played in was pretty light on overt PvP rivalry, but almost everyone had a hidden agenda. That's far more like the source material than the introductory material of the game is.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

The rules also tell you that it's a game that requires deviousness and pre-planning, but the examples are . . . like children trying to be cunning before they've learned to tell lies. The campaign I played in was pretty light on overt PvP rivalry, but almost everyone had a hidden agenda. That's far more like the source material than the introductory material of the game is.

Now that I'm older, looking at it, I think I could probably play it for at least a session. I'm much less "sure of my self" in terms of what is "good" or "right" or whatever....more "grey", less "black and white".

I think if we all took the game as a sort of "RPG version" of playing one of those older "How to Host a Murder" dinner party games from the early 2000's, or as a sort of table top version of the video game "Among Us"...where the players are highly suspicious of others and at the same time trying to "win over" everyone else....that sort of a mindset might make for a very interesting game!

I'm normally not at all interested in PvP (in any sense), but if this was the 'groundwork' and everyone at the table knew what we were going to play and was all in for it...yeah, I can totally see your approach being kinda fun.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Umbran]

I didn't like any iteration of Shadowrun until I got to playtest Anarchy. We were playing Shadowrun and when our DM was editing and writing for the Anarchy playtest he converted us over and we never looked back. Our characters just improved. They weren't "better" just more consistent in their design. Long gone were the days of rolling 40d6 and we were all happy to see them go.

What I have read about Anarchy says that the book has lots of editing problems, though, which makes me hesitant to pick it up.

 

[AtomicPope]

What I have read about Anarchy says that the book has lots of editing problems, though, which makes me hesitant to pick it up.

The editing is awful. Our DM was working freelance as an editor and he said they weren't updating or compiling the edits. He would have to resend his work over and over again. They were (are) completely disorganized. If it's any consolation, Anarchy is better edited than Gamma World 3e. It's been a while since we played it so I don't know if they've ever updated their latest edition with the errata.