Worst RPG System You Ever Palyed?

[Ourph]

So, since I didn't feel the need to read your whole post, now you get a idea of why I find your opinion laughable for giving it an hour of head scratching to figure it out.

No, now I get an idea of how exactly right I was about C&C fanboys not even pausing to finish reading the post before attacking when they see someone uttering the blasphemy of saying they don't like the one-true-game. After all, the Crusader Inquisition doesn't need no stinking facts! The chief weapons of the Crusader Inquisition are surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical inability to hear criticism without going off the deep end and nice red uniforms. Facts just get in the way.

Playtested it? If you playtested it with the same amount of effort you gave to reading it, I'm still not impressed. BTW, I did read your whole post, how do you think I know how you went off if I didn't.

You're the one who said you didn't read the whole thing. Should I just step back and let you have this argument with yourself?

As for my reading ability, I don't know how much verbage you can get through in an hour, but for me that was plenty of time to get through most of the book (minus the spell descriptions of course). There's not really that much to digest about C&C (it is, after all, supposed to be rules-LITE, yes?). An hour was certainly enough for me to be able to handle generating a character and playing in a game without any problems.

I didn't even spend that much time staring at the art (despite the fact that it was arguably the most original and well-done aspect of the whole book).

You get all uppity when you think your whole opinion isn't read and attempted to be understood, but you can't even give a game system the same amount of consideration, just condemn it without a fair shake.

Hey, if the guy had kept running the game, I'd have been glad to play a few more sessions. If you want, I can send you his address and you can go punch him in the nose or something if it will make you feel better about the whole thing.

BTW - It should take, at most, 5 minutes to read my original post (even for people whose lips move when they read), I devoted approximately 10 hours to giving C&C a "fair shake". That was more than enough time to form the ONE opinion I've expressed on the game; namely - it's one of the worst games I've ever played.

I know C&C isn't for everyone, but I don't like people condeming a game when it might keep other people from giving it a look see, when that opinion they might follow is so poorly thought out and tested.

This would be truly annoying if it weren't so incredibly funny.

Hey everyone, look at me! My power and influence over others is so astounding I can choose people's games for them simply by saying what I do and don't like.

ALL YOUR BRAINS ARE BELONG TO ME!!!

Now if I'd only choose to use my powers for good instead of evil!

BTW - What makes this so funny is that you're telling me that 10 hours of playtime and a good hour of reading the actual rules makes for a "poorly thought out and tested" opinion, and then in this next section you go on to make completely unfounded assumptions about my opinions, likes, dislikes and other game-related experiences (which are completely erroneous I might add) with absolutely no foundation for those opinions. Nice illustration of irony!

C&C is a game to try if you are "tired" of the complexity of 3.5.

Yep. That's me.

If you aren't tired of 3.5, then there is no reason to go play C&C.

Nope. Not me.

C&C is only of use to you if you want a system than is lighter in the rules that you can still base a roleplaying game around and have based in a fanatasy setting.

Yep, me again.

If you like 3.5 there is absolutely no reason to use or try anything else that is so similar.

Maybe my sarcasm earlier didn't come through (or maybe you didn't bother to read that part as well). To be clear ..... I don't particularly like D&D 3e because I feel it's overly complex. I've spent some time looking around at rules-liter options and C&C was under consideration specifically because it promised to be similar but less complex.

I realize that logic and reason and reality aren't really important once the Crusader Inquisition gets their hooks into me, but I think the facts at least deserve a fair airing before I'm flayed alive for my heresies.

But to bad mouth it without giving it a "real" try out? Plus to have no real need or desire to try something other than 3.5? You don't even understand why people would try other systems.

For the record - this is totally getting printed out and circulated amongst my gaming friends. The "guy who won't play D&D" aka "the guy who is always trying to get us to play some wierd non-D&D game" getting flamed for being a die-hard 3.5e fanboy should be worth at least one Mountain Dew spewed through the nose incident.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I guess I'm amused, but not surprised, that there aren't really any devotees of the majority of the "Worst. Game. EVAR!" nominees in here, declaiming about how they are really the best thing since sliced bread ...

Except for the C&C crowd.

Heck, the most strident opposition apart from them is the RM delegation - and even they have conceded points like, "Yeah, character creation is a pain."

As for me, the worst game I've ever played?

I think I'm going to have to agree with RoleMaster, but not because of any inherent problems with the system. My first - and only - RM character was a pregenerated one, so I missed what is apparently a major pitfall of the system. No, my problem with it was that, looking at my character sheet, I had a list of about 100 different abilities - and didn't really know what any of them did or how to use them.

I think, given time, I might have grown more comfortable with the system and enjoyed it more.

Oh, except for the fact that, in one of my first combats, I think I cut off my own hand. That was a bit of a downer.

EDIT:

Oh, and Ourph makes me laugh. Keep fighting the good fight, brother! Any luck finding a more-fitting system? Burning Wheel's getting some good reviews.

 

[Ourph]

Oh, and Ourph makes me laugh. Keep fighting the good fight, brother! Any luck finding a more-fitting system? Burning Wheel's getting some good reviews.

WHFRPv2 is doing us proud so far, but I'm also looking forward to getting Riddle of Steel in the mail sometime next week.

 

[HellHound]

WHFRPv2 is doing us proud so far, but I'm also looking forward to getting Riddle of Steel in the mail sometime next week.

I'm not going to rag on any in-print systems in this discussion, because I know that it will only make me enemies (or at least make me less loved), but I will step forward and say that I really fell in love with WHFRP2.

REALLY.

Chris managed to seriously improve this game from its roots, and has me 100% hooked on it. I'm -very- excited for the release of WH40KRP

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I guess I'm amused, but not surprised, that there aren't really any devotees of the majority of the "Worst. Game. EVAR!" nominees in here, declaiming about how they are really the best thing since sliced bread ...

Except for the C&C crowd.

Well, to be fair, GURPS was mentioned a couple of times and I did defend it...

 

[Turjan]

Well, to be fair, GURPS was mentioned a couple of times and I did defend it...

Even Synnibarr has its fan in this thread . But only the C&C discussion got heated .

 

[Professor Phobos]

Well, to be fair, GURPS was mentioned a couple of times and I did defend it...

I would go so far as to say that, while GURPs is certainly not for everyone, it is an excellent game. As far as I can tell (and from my brief GURPs gaming experiences), it does what it sets out to do very well.

It does have flaws that aren't so easy to assign to personal preference- it does have a steep learning curve, not all the optional rules are, well, good, etc, but GURPs is one of those games I want to like, because I can see doing a lot of neat things with it.

I'd post a similiar defense of C&C. There are some genuine flaws, but I think that if you're the type of person who both wants to get the "Classic D&D experience" and can handle a rules-light game, C&C is perfect, or nearly so.

Most of Jackalope King's disgruntlements were with things I see as virtues of C&C. What one man calls "vague" I might call "fast and flexible", etc etc.

For these reasons, I don't think either game belong on this thread. I mean, playing C&C and then saying there weren't enough rules is kind of like playing Call of Cthulhu and complaining about the steady degradation of mental health, or playing Tekumel when you dislike extremely involved setting background, or playing Traveller when you have a morbid phobia of space...

 

[Akrasia]

He did. He had dexterity and charisma as his primes (I honestly forget the third one his thief had, but I don't think it came up in play). The problem was that the mage (who did not have charisma as a prime) had charisma as a great charisma score, so even with the two characters having different primes, the mage's charisma score was consistantly high enough to make it just almost as easy for him to meet the same tasks as the thief without even having charisma as a prime. ...

This makes no sense. A prime gives a PC the equivalent of a +6 bonus. So even if the thief had an average charisma, and the wizard had an 18 charisma, the the thief would still have a full +3 more to charisma checks than the thief (+6 versus +3).

... In standard d20 he has a set of relatively pre-defined skills to fall back on and say, "Oh you want to do grab the tapestry and run along the wall? Make a climb check." In C&C you have to sit back and say, "Is it more strength or dexterity? Climb is pretty strength-based, but what about scambering along the wall like this? What kind of number should the check be? Is it easier or harder than the standard 12/18? Should I allow any modifies because it fits the character's specialties?" ...

Well I'm surprised that any decent GM would have such a hard time making these kinds of judgements when running a game (regardless of the system). As I said already, no rules can guarantee good GM'ing.

... There must've been some fundamental problem with the game itself which would've thrown him off like this. ...

No. The problem is that the GM is obviously ill-suited to run this kind of game -- he obviously needs a lot of guidance in order to make basic decisions.

Lots of other GMs do *not* have the problems you describe with C&C. So no, your poor experience is *not* a result of some kind of 'fundamental problem' with the game itself.

... we cared about TLG giving us rules-lite d20, plain and simple. And they almost did. I just can't fathom why they decided AD&Dism were "rules-lite"....

Well, you clearly did not understand the whole purpose of C&C. It was meant to recapture a lot of 'old school' D&D-isms. If that is not your cup of tea, so be it -- it doesn't mean that those features don't appeal to other gamers, or that they render the game 'bad'.

... Truth be told. However, this is the second system I've ever played which seems to encourage bad GM'ing...

Please. This is complete rubbish. The system does not 'encourage bad GM'ing'. And in fact, many people have found the game to encourage *good* GM'ing (by using fewer, more general rules mechanics -- and thereby requiring less 'rules checking' and prep work, which in turn allows for more focus on roleplaying and story elements during the game).

Your basic mistake here is making a sweeping generalization based on your own (rather badly GM'ed) experience.

While C&C may not suit *every* GM and gaming group, it does work for many GMs and groups -- and thus is not an 'intrinsically flawed' system.

... So the only variable left unaccounted for is the system, leaving me to blame the system....

Again, you're making an unwarranted generalization based on your own experience. The fact that many other GMs have had extremely positive experiences with the game indicate that your conclusion is unjustified.

It would be more accurate to say that the system is clearly one that did not suit your GM's style and abilities.

... I normally don't like to rant about games I dislike so much since it causes reactions like this from folks who do enjoy the game. So again, my appologies for dragging this so far off-track.

It certainly doesn't bother me that you don't like C&C. It is obviously not a game that appeals to everyone.

What I *do* object to you is your spurious claim that there is something 'fundamentally wrong' with the rules simply because your GM didn't know how to run it.

 

[maggot]

To sum it up: Even if you have had bad experiences with GURPS in the past, it might be worth it to give the system another look...

I have a friend that loves GURPS. He ran various GURPS games for years, and finally I had to say "no more." Life is too short to give second chances to a game I know I don't enjoy. And there are far too many games out I haven't even given a first chance.

 

[maggot]

They did that because it gave you a bell curve. You were much more likely to do something averagely (rolling a 10-11) than you were to do something really well or really poorly (rolling a 2 or a 20). A good change

(About change from Torg to Masterbook.) I would agree if it weren't for the fact that you take the number rolled and look it up on a table. Having to add two dice and then look it up on a table for a bonus to add to a skill is too much work for no gain. The bell curve could be built into the table with a flat die roll. Either remove the table or roll only one die. D&D does both, and that is fine with me, but I know it irks some other people. I also love Torg, which does the one die and a table thing. I've seen house systems that use two dice and that works too. But two dice and a table is too much.