Worst RPG System You Ever Palyed?

[buzz]

Synnibar is a good system.

 

[maggot]

Wow, five pages in and I've still got a new one.

A game I actually played, and thought was the worst: West End Game's Masterbook.

Character creation was nigh-incomprehensible, and in actual play, you took your stat, rolled 2d10, added your stat, looked the result up on a chart, which you then compared to the target number. Incredibly clunky in play, especially when you were trying to do Indiana Jones.

Actually, you rolled 2d10, looked it up on a chart, and then added your stat. It was based on Torg, where you rolled 1d20, looked it up on a chart, and then added your stat. I'm not sure why they decided to use two dice instead of one when they made Masterbook. And I always had the sneaking suspicion in Torg that the "look it up on the chart" part was unnecessary. Along comes D&D 3E, and you get roll 1d20 and add your stat. Brilliant.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Actually, you rolled 2d10, looked it up on a chart, and then added your stat. It was based on Torg, where you rolled 1d20, looked it up on a chart, and then added your stat. I'm not sure why they decided to use two dice instead of one when they made Masterbook. And I always had the sneaking suspicion in Torg that the "look it up on the chart" part was unnecessary. Along comes D&D 3E, and you get roll 1d20 and add your stat. Brilliant.

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.

DS

 

[Turjan]

Assassin was good (if a shameless appeal to nostalgia), but the character needed some more melee presence, so I decided I'd multiclass him to monk. But wait! No rules for multiclassing.

If you try to play a game with the rules from a different game, then I don't really see a point in complaining . You try to emulate specific D&D3E characters with D&D3E means. That cannot go well.

The thief was trying to get behind the counter of the tavern for cover and made a dexterity check to do so (high stat and a prime), which he did easily. The human knight then said he wanted to do the same. The CK said he couldn't, but the knight said that he had dexterity as his prime (for being human), and thus should be allowed to do the same action as the thief. The game ground to a halt for a few minutes while the CK explained why he didn't think a knight should be able to move like that and questioned why the knight had dexterity as a prime.

The argument went nowhere, and the knight reluctantly agreed to the CK's ruling, though he then requested permission to change his prime from dexterity (since it was useless to a knight in the CK's mind).

This and the next example are more a showcase for bad DMing. If a manoeuvre just asks for an ability check, why not let him do it? And your next example is even more blatant. An enemy is allowed a strength check for holding back a character, and none of the PCs is? Did it never come to your mind to keep the C&C book and bring the GM back to the shop ?

Hmm... I'd never thought I'd defend C&C one day. It's not even my cup of tea .

 

[Ourph]

This statement shows an almost utter lack of understanding of the system that you play (I assume), 3.x D&D, as it relates to C&C.

Well, you know what they say about assuming, right?

Not only is your assumption wrong, it's about 180 degrees from the actual truth. It also shows pretty obviously that you completely failed to read the original comment before replying to it. C&C does hold onto numerous AD&Disms and does add things that were never included in OAD&D. If you don't like the fact that I'm unappreciative of those additions, fine. Sue me. It doesn't mean I lack understanding.

C&C has NO clunky addons, if anything it removes rules from the 3.x scheme.

Where did I say that? Where did I mention 3e in my post? Oh wait, I forgot - you're replying to your assumptions. Not to me. Never mind.

To clarify, I never said C&C adds anything to D&D 3e, I said it holds onto numerous AD&Disms (as in original AD&D aka 1e) and adds a bunch of clunky stuff in addition.

I know that every person who doesn't like C&C and actually dares to voice that opinion on the intarweb MUST be brought before the Crusader Inquisition and punished for their insolence, but maybe you should actually read and comprehend the comments before you start heating up the pokers and sharpening the spikes on Ye Olde Iron Maiden. You know, just to make sure you're convincting me of the correct offense.

C&C is so close to D&D 3.x that it seems almost ridiculous to say one is great and the other is one of the most horrible systems you ever played (although to prefer one greatly over the other is expected).

What the f.......? Yeah, that's me....a foaming-at-the-mouth fanboy of D&D 3e. [insert sarcastic emoticon here]

Is this a joke? Really....tell me. This totally has to be a joke, right?

*DID* you play it, or skim it at the bookstore?

I did both at the bookstore (or "gamestore" to be more accurate) FYI. Though "skim" isn't as accurate as saying I sat, reading the book and scratching my head for about an hour, thinking to myself "Now, why would I pay money for this crap again?". I also played in two demo sessions at the store because they were free and run by a decent GM. It was only two because the guy decided he didn't like C&C and started running a d20 Star Wars game instead.

I didn't actually buy the book though. Which I understand, in the world of C&C Crusader-dom, completely eliminates any rights I might have to express an opinion on the game. Again, sue me!

 

[Baron Opal]

Well of Souls

Cool cosmographic generator, non-existant character generation and reasons to adventure.

 

[Treebore]

Ourph,

Jackalope King and his group gave C&C a decent chance. I don't see how you can think you did because you spent a whole hour trying to figure it out. I spent way more time than that trying to figure out 3.0 when it came out, heck, I spent weeks reading and re-reading and then playtesting and memorizing the new terminology and acronyms.

C&C doesn't even have all of its rule books out yet, and you gave it an hour. I'm supposed to give your opinion credibility for what reason? I wouldn't give your opinion credibility for any game system you put so little effort into figuring out.

Then you go off like that? The beginning of this thread put forth the criteria of playing a game in order to pass judgement on it, you don't meet the criteria.

 

[Dr. Harry]

This is my numero uno on the worst of the worst list. Bad art, bad rules....just all around bad. And this is from someone who actually liked the 80's TV series, so it's not a distaste with the genre. It's also not that the rules were particularly clunky or complex in comparison to some other systems of its era, it's that the rules completely failed to facilitate the pulp-action feel that a Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon/Space Ranger-type game should have, like trying to play a wire-fu RPG using the rules from Call of Cthulhu.

Yeah! Setting aside the Richard Scarry artwork that was truly terrible, I watched the TV show, bought the first trilogy, wanted a good hard sci-fi game and still will occasionally wake up twitching at night ...

 

[Devall2000]

Tell me how Daredevil could have beaten the Hulk in the Marvel Superheroes Roleplaying Game? He didn't have the strength to get through the Hulk's body armor. The only way I can think of is if he threw his club/cane at him and got a stun or kill(if applicable). Even then, I don't think he could get through the body armor.

Also, Spider-man beat Firelord in the comics. It doesn't look like there's anyway for him to do it in the game. Granted, I would need to look at it closely. I'm going on old memory here.

-Jamie

 

[Turjan]

The beginning of this thread put forth the criteria of playing a game in order to pass judgement on it, you don't meet the criteria.

He said he played two sessions. Perhaps, you misread that .