Worst RPG System You Ever Palyed?

[Akrasia]

And I object to you saying my GM isn't even a decent GM, that we don't have any understanding of the game, and that I'm making sweeping generalizations.
...

But your previous post did contain sweeping generalizations about the game -- all based on your own particular experience with it.

In fact, in your last post, you repeatedly said that the rules *themselves* were at fault for your poor experience -- whereas it was painfully obvious that the rules were simply not well-suited to your group and GM (given your particular needs and interests).

... my group ... we feel ... We players ... We ... for us. ... my group ....

It's good to see that you've learned an important lesson here -- namely, the importance of understanding that your subjective experiences do not establish universal facts.

 

[Jackelope King]

In fact, in your last post, you repeatedly said that the rules *themselves* were at fault for your poor experience -- whereas it was painfully obvious that the rules were simply not well-suited to your group and GM (given your particular needs and interests).

Well the rules weren't well-suited to our group and our GM, so for us the rules themselves were at fault for us. And judging by what other people have posted elsewhere at ENWorld, my group isn't the only one to have such problems.

I'm well aware that my experiences don't translate to universal truths, but I never claimed they did. You seemed very quick to read things into my post that were not there. If I mislead you, I appologize and will try to be more clear posting in the future, but I would ask that you try to avoid reading too much into what others post.

 

[Akrasia]

Well the rules weren't well-suited to our group and our GM, so for us the rules themselves were at fault for us. And judging by what other people have posted elsewhere at ENWorld, my group isn't the only one to have such problems....

You realize that C&C has been nominated for an ENNie award, right?

Like many other games, there are many posters here at ENworld who quite like the system, and a number who dislike it. Big surprise.

There are five reviews of the PHB, with an average score of 4/5 (two 3's, one 4, and two 5's). If the rules were really unplayable, I suspect that the average score would be quite lower.

I'm well aware that my experiences don't translate to universal truths, but I never claimed they did. You seemed very quick to read things into my post that were not there. If I mislead you, I appologize and will try to be more clear posting in the future, but I would ask that you try to avoid reading too much into what others post.

You kept claiming that there were fundamental or intrinsic problems with the rules themselves. It is hard to see how I read 'too much' into what you said. I disagreed with what you explicitly stated -- e.g. your claim that the rules themselves 'encouraged bad GM'ing'.

 

[romp]

BattleLords of the 22nd Century. Asparagusheaded psychic people, big dumb lizards with guns, Gene-humans, which are exactly like humans but with better genes, and Orian Rogues- basically fast childish humans, are ok. I can handle that. What I can't handle is the "random but enforced background quirks table" which made my character both an Intergalactic Space-ball champion, easily recognized everywhere he goes, AND a wanted criminal in seven quadrants, AND have a paralyzing fear of open spaces (spaceball is played in open vacuum...)... and also, my class was apparently "cyborg" despite the fact that I was a, uh, shapeshifting mass of ooze...

Battle Lords of the 23rd Century ...

ohhh such blasphemy! BL is a great game but there were some major balance issues with the character types, one group i played with had a major long running campaign with BL, very quirky ruleset but as long as you were light hearted about it it was fun to play ... (I went through three characters in two weeks time once, and some of those flaws could be real doozies ...

 

[Ourph]

I know you're irritated with Treebore. But I think it is unfair to assume that all gamers who like C&C don't care about 'logic and reason'.

Not all gamers who like C&C are part of the Crusader Inquisition (or is that just what they want you to believe ).

I've defended the game many times on these boards, and have always endeavoured to present reasons for my position.

Telling people what you like about the game is great. I've enjoyed reading your analysis and opinions about the positive aspects of the game. But the Crusader Inquisition doesn't care about talking up the positive aspects of the game. As far as I can see, the Crusader Inquisition's main purpose is to label anyone who wasn't involved in playtesting, hasn't bought every book and hasn't been involved in a C&C campaign since the day the PHB was released as an uninformed boob with no right to an opinion.

I think i would enjoy talking to you face to face.

I doubt it.

I still think you should give C&C a better look if you really are looking for something else. Using your experiences with 3.5 you can definitely add some house rules to C&C and make it into something you would enjoy better than 3.5. Which is part of why C&C is designed the way it is, they want you to able to import ideas from other systems as easily as possible.

As I said, I think I gave C&C a fair go. It's not the things that C&C leaves out from 3e that bother me, it's the stuff it keeps from AD&D without any of the actual redeeming qualities of AD&D. I know some people think the SIEGE system is mana sent from heaven, but AFAIAC and IMO it's clunky and inelegant. Since that's pretty much the only thing C&C brings to the table as far as innovation, it really doesn't have much to offer me.

I can't see any reason to spend time or money trying to make myself like another uninspired D&D clone when there are so many other great RPGs on the market today that I could be investing my gaming time into. I'd rather be playing the game or working on a campaign than writing and testing out houserules trying to make a (what I consider to be) pretty lackluster and mediocre attempt at game design work for me. Why should I put in the effort trying to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse when I have talented people like Chris Pramas, CJ Carella or Jake Norwood willing to do the design work for me?

After all, it's not like I ranked C&C just below my favorite RPGs. This is a thread about the games we feel are the worst RPGs we've ever played. I ranked C&C as tied for 2nd place as my worst RPG experience ever for a reason and I stand by my opinion (whether it irks others who are fans of the game or not).

 

[amethal]

The worst RPG I've played is MERP, and that was not too bad, so I've been lucky.

It was appropriately grim and gritty, but there were too many tables and it wasn't heroic enough for my taste - I once had a character die whilst attempting to climb a tree, only for the GM to then "realise" (rightly or wrongly - don't know the rules well enough to tell whether it was a fudge) that the situation called for maiming instead of death.

Possibly Rolemaster would have been worse, but we never got beyond the first session (where, naturally, we only got as far as character generation, so never got to play).

d6 Star Wars is one of the best systems I've ever played, but we tended to use it as a filler, or a change of pace, so we never got much beyond starting characters. Didn't matter to us whether the game had any flaws at higher levels ....

The advice for GMs was superb - "keep the game flowing, don't allow a character to die unless its a suitably dramatic moment, think big, challenge all the characters' skills, and never, ever let the rules get in the way of fun." I try and run my D&D campaigns in the same manner.

Similarly, Marvel Super Heroes worked great for the very short campaign we did. Who cares if some first level characters can defeat the Hulk. This is super hero roleplaying, not Forgotten Realms.

 

[tetsujin28]

I *loved* Aftermath. I reveled in its quirkiness. We always played 'realistic' post-apocalypse, though. No mutants for us.

Another loving vote for Aftermath! (the ! is part of the title, btw). Both it and Morrow Project occupied way too much of my time in the early '80s.

Worst game evar? Hmmm. That's tricky. It's kind of unfair to knock Superhero 2044, as it was done so long ago. But it was pretty darn bad.

I've actually been pretty lucky over my 29 or so years of gaming...I seem to be able to smell bad games from a long ways away, and avoid them

 

[Arpad]

GURPS. Yeah, I've seen worse, but it's the worst system I've ever played.

 

[romp]

Space Opera was a half finished systems. In the mustering out tables one of the benefits was that you could get any body armor "up to class 14" or something to that effect. However no place in the system did it ever actually assign ratings like that to the body armor.

Space Opera was a talisman for me while I was in school. Like one poster said earlier, I felt that the meaning of life would be unraveled if I could just decipher the rules. The "mustering-out" benefits were rife with munckin stuff, one even got a "complete ship" on mustering out... yeesh!

 

[Professor Phobos]

As a side note, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call a group of rabid C&C fans a "Crusade" rather than an inquisition?

I mean, I'm just sayin'...