Worst RPG Ever?

[Rackhir]

I would have to put in a vote for Twilight 2000. For a system that was supposed to simulate modern combat it did an abysmally bad job. In one encounter we put 3, count-em 3 TOW II's into a BMP-2.That's 3 missiles each designed to destroy a main battle tank, each one that hit a vehicle which has consistently been described as a flaming coffin. 3 TOW II's failed to inflict ANY SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE WHAT SO EVER. After that we just kind of lost interest in the system, we just couldn't take seriously a system that permitted that sort of result.

Champions however, is one of my favorite games. Without a doubt, it is not a game for people who hate math. Anyone who hated math in school will never like it or see it's virtues. If you aren't afraid of math or know how to use a spreadsheet it is hands down the best superhero system ever created. Especially, if you enjoy creating characters and exploiting the systems to implement concepts.

 

[Ace]

Wrong.

Pick up a copy of BESM.

Superhero, Sorcerer, Swordfighter, Gunslinger, Mechapilot, Spirit, Werewolf, Vampire, Jet Pilot, Car Racer, God (Greater, Minor, Demi, you name it), Martial Artist, Mouse (Can Champions do that?), Cyborg, Robot, you name it.

And you can roll up a character in under 10 minutes. Even a newbie could do it in half an hour with no instruction.

My first try with Besm I did a party of 6 adventures, sans skills in about half an hour. Not bad at all. BESM is not cuppa but hands down its better than champions and as flexible. Also if you like Supers, Silver Age Sentinals is in playtest on Pyramid and it looks really good for 4 color stuff.

 

[Tsyr]

My first try with Besm I did a party of 6 adventures, sans skills in about half an hour. Not bad at all. BESM is not cuppa but hands down its better than champions and as flexible. Also if you like Supers, Silver Age Sentinals is in playtest on Pyramid and it looks really good for 4 color stuff.

And the nice thing about BESM, while expansion books are NICE, they aren't NEEDED... the rules are so dang flexible you can fudge just about anything using some combination of things.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I've noticed that a few have mentioned Twilight 2000...

I assume you're refering to the yellow books--because the original version rocked, had a great feel, and was extremely lethal.

Rackhir-- As an example of this lethality, the highest armour value listed for the BMP-C is 60--and a TOW II does 4d6(x40) damage! Excess points are scored internally, and are very, very messy...

 

[Ulrick]

While I've seen and even purchased bad RPGs in my time, I'll only list the top ten worst. 10=least worse 1= worst RPG ever.

Pretend I'm David Letterman.

10. Star Wars by West End Games. The only reason why I played this game was because the GM was very good. I just got tired of rolling all those dice.

9. Vampire, 2ed--the non-revised version. Maybe it was because I was 14 or 15 when I bought it, but the rules just confused me and those who tried to play it. I was the storyteller, I had everyone create a character, I had a plot formed. But the mechanics just didn't seem "right."

8. Mage--2ed before revised edition. Great concept. Just couldn't fathom the rules.

Note: I really like both revisions to 8 & 9. The rules are more understandable. Both games I rate A+.

7. Dragonlance: Sage rules. Playing a card RPG just didn't feel right.

6. Wraith: The Oblivion. Good concept. Bad rules. After trying to read the most depressing rulebook ever, I had no will to try to encourage other people to play it.

5. Armeggedon: The End Times are here: Again, good concept. Bad rules. After reading through the book I realized I could accomplish the same results with another system.

4. Warhammer Quest. Hack. Slash. Hack. Slash. Wizard kills everything with spells--gets all the gold. The game really isn't feasible to play after the characters begin gaining levels and using the random table. Just too many special abilities to keep track of. But I do like the world it is set in.

3. Dragonstrike! I'm not certain if this qualifies as an RPG. But the game itself was as cheesy as the video that came with it.

2. FUDGE. I tried to create my own RPG. I really tried.

1. GURPS. (In David Spade voice) I have an idea. Let's create an RPG where we'll have a stack of rulebooks to aid in the creation of a character. This of course would take at least 3 hours to do so with a lot of min/maxing involved. Then will have combat rounds be 1 second long so that play will take a long time.
BLECH! (In the Comic-book-owner voice from the Simpsons) Worst RPG EVER.

Ulrick

 

[Black Omega]

Worst ever..that's pretty hard to settle on. I'd have to say I'm right there on Babylon 5. Great setting, but the game system wasn't good at all. I like the Palladium reference books for reading, but never even considered playing the system.

Champions/Hero System would be my vote for best game. That's a place where I and Wizard magazine agree. Creating characters is pretty easy as long as at least one person is familiar with it. Combats can be long, but that really depends on how well the group knows the rules. The two longest combats I've run have both been in 3rd ed Dnd, not Champions. And most complains about complexity are nullfied if you use Hero System for a human level game.

 

[jollyninja]

dragonlance saga had no redeeming qualities. it was crap through and through. cards = poo. ok 1 redeeming quality, min/maxing was quite difficult due to the fact that you were dealt a hand, and that determined what you could do and how well from the beginning to your death. you had a role and that was your role, want to do something else? make a new guy.

having stated that, gurps was the worst experience i have ever had and i only went through one adventure. the group looked at eachother and allmost in unison said "this f'ing sucks"

however it had no tables governing genitalia dimensions. without having even seen that one, it's the worst ever. i give.

 

[MulhorandSage]

Okay, let's approach this from another angle; rather than describing those systems whose learning curves were steep or which provided some bad game experiences, here are some qualities I've noticed detract from game systems.

* Imprecise terminology. Basic game terms should accurately describe the effect, and *never* work against what a player would reasonably expect that game term should represent.
* Poor organization. It should take about thirty seconds searching though the index or the table of content to find any important rule, and an additional thirty seconds for the gamemaster to make a consistent ruling.
* Ambiguous rules. Rules arguments are not a good thing.
* Author ego. This is particularly evident in rules that seem to act as a vehicle for the author's literary ambitions (particularly embarassing when the author's fiction-writing abilities fall well short of their ambitions) or a soapbox for their religious and/or political views and turn the game into a screed.
* Inconsistent tone. The game with the grand epic tone should not have examples pulled from _Knights of the Dinner Table_ or _Bored of the Rings_.
* Inconsistent level of modelling. Detailed simulation systems shouldn't have gaps. Likewise, loose storytelling systems shouldn't have detailed rules for areas that reflect the author's fetish, but deride simulationist games as anal.
* Pre-built for supplements. Does the ruleset have significant gaps that *require* the player to purchase additional supplements to play the basic game system? If so, does it bother to tell the player they're not buying a complete game system?
* Rules in character samples. Is the only way to figure out a rule by deconstructing a character example? Do they *contradict* the rules?

There are couple of other things that bug me, but are matters of personal taste that shouldn't be considered general rules.
* Rip off setting: Did someone copy a popular setting without acknowledging they filed off the serial numbers? (There's a difference between BESM and TFOS, which acknowledge their love of the source material and those that don't.)
* Swamp water settings. Let's take a genre and add magic (or psionics) to it. I can hear all the Shadowrun fans screaming right now, but I like settings not to give thought to how they mesh their elements. ("Let's do the post-holocaust setting where radiation mutated people into wizards, elves, and trolls! Yeah, that's the ticket!")
* Is the creator a flaming jerk? Does he show no respect for the people who founded this hobby, on whose shoulders he's standing to make his living? Does he corner you at Gencon, engage you in boring, rambling, and insulting drunken conversations, then leave you to pay for his drinks when your back's turned?

Okay, flame away.

Scott Bennie

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Mmh, badly made games, there are many of those out there.

Boring/Abominable free net-rpg:s - Too many of them out there to even remember most of them. I've read/used many good ones too.

Friend's homebrew - Oh, dear, why I need 25 different stats? And it got worse from there.

TORG -Clumsy system, and I mostly recall this game, because it used cards, and when I bought it, through some printing error, my cards didn't have anything written on them. Still, I had fun playing it for a while.

Many horrible systems/games I've only played have actually been fun, because of good Gm and other players.

I don't know if it is the worst, but it was certainly the most disappointing--probably because I had such high hopes for it...

Hero Wars

...I'll stick with 1st edition Runequest for my Glorantha gaming--thank you very much.

Rant...

Yep, I've seen a lot of bad games, abominations even, but raraly it happens, that my old-time favourite turns into complite piece of junk.

Maybe Hero Wars wasn't as bad, it there hadn't been all those promises, years they tried to make 'perfect system' (and some of those disregarded tries are actually pretty good), and then they choose this crappy half-blooded 'story-telling system', which is actually quite opposite to story-telling, but lacking lot of examples and lists which typically polulater rpg:s. Speak of confusing and lacking system. 'Cool' sounding names for skills/spells/divane gifts/monster abilities/whatsoever without any explanitons what they actually are. Crappy editing, A5-size for books, lack of index, but here comes the 'best part'.

Material is mostly just slightly disguised version reprinted old stuff, with certain 'feeling' added like when Michael Moorcock wrote few extra Elric books in his later days (let's say athmosphere had changed somewhat).

Also, IMO all fantasy-flovor, that was Glorantha, has been replaced with Fantasy-Earth thems, and certain earth-culture/mythos rip-off art/symbols just puts me off.

Glorantha used to be great world with sense of adventure, and wonder. But it's makers have years ago forgotten what adventure and heroes are about.

After reading great amount of 'sad' fan-products which so hard to avoided bringing bad (aka. IMO good) elements popular in D&D to game. This was not game-system issues, but idea that pc:s are some nobodies in the world, where 'real heroes' and rulers get to be "system npc:s". Every adventure I've ever seen in years Glorantha was only actively written in fanzines and stuff seems to dearly hold idea, that Greg Stafford's creations are real movers and shakers (however, this moving and shaking has been pretty static and Hero Wars-system didn't change that), and pc:s are expected to remain as just´some 'random' adventurers.

I could go on about this, but I let it rest.

And yes, when I still play in Glorantha, I use RQ system, and only good old material.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Zelda Themelin--

I couldn't agree more. BTW, you alluded to some of the versions that never made it to print, have you checked out the site that offers a free download of RuneQuest Slayers?