[OFF] Other Crappy RPGs...

What is the name of the game that must never be named? you guys suck cause now I need to know what it is

Heretek wrote:What is the name of the game that must never be named? you guys suck cause now I need to know what it is

No you do not.

Heretek wrote:What is the name of the game that must never be named? you guys suck cause now I need to know what it is

There is a link to the game's *review* floating in this thread. Not being a complete bastard, I'll leave finding it to your own good self if you *really* want to. Read at your own peril, but do try not to claw your eyes out while you're at it.

I thank you for your time

Lord Gorthuar de Veris
Cult of Nagash

You know, I think I might have jsut found a game worse than F.A.T.A.L.... Racial Holy War.

Lord of the Pit wrote:

scumofsociety wrote:No, I would still have to call it an insanely over complex pile of crap.

Hmm yes, a hit the pituitary gland! Thats the kind of detail all RPGs should have, I just cant see why no one has done it before...

Ever played Phoenix Command? You dont only get to know that you hit the lung, but also that the bullet lodged exactly half way trough the spine...

Ive played aliens...thats a pared down version IIRC.

I think the reviewers overplay the sex element a bit tbh. Ive only skipped through but there is huge amounts in there that isnt about generally being shitty to women. It just when you include things like anal circumference potential and vaginal depth potential on a character sheet people very understandably (and probably quite correctly) think your a bit of an anal circumference yourself.

My main objection is how complex it all seems, but then I havent read it properly, maybe it is all just maladjusted woman hating garbage.

PsyckoSama wrote:You know, I think I might have jsut found a game worse than F.A.T.A.L.... Racial Holy War.

Yeah, I have to say as settings go that one does take the prize.

i think one of the things that makes 'the game' so bad in comparison to that, is that that (RHW) sounds like a total half assed job. The 'other' one has clearly had a lot of work put into it. Its 900 pages. And the guy clearly has done a lot of research. Dubious quality research, but hes done it. Its just the effort thats gone into it, and still its a steaming pile.

EDIT: From reading all of that review im not even sure Id categorise it as a game, so much as the deranged dribbling of a moron

PsyckoSama wrote:You know, I think I might have jsut found a game worse than F.A.T.A.L.... Racial Holy War.

ZOMG! WTF is this! OK, so 'the game that shouldn't be named' has an even more inbred brother/son. I wish I could go back in time and erase this knowledge from my mind.

Oh, well, at least the review is quite funny.

Ok, so now we have had the usual hysterics over games that don't suck (D&D e.g.) to finally begin talking about games that truly are not good. That actually are bad on a level that even those that don't like D&D have to admit that there are truly games out there that are magnitudes worse.

The usual suspects when it comes to this bunch of games are FATAL, World of Synnibar, RaHoWa, Zensar, Cyborg Commando and a late entry named Wraeththu.

As an anecdote, I once had a guy writing a letter to a magazine claiming that a game I wrote was "the worst game ever published™". Little did he know of the depths that other game designers have sunk to.

/Magnus

Well, to be fair, the OP asked about games people 'despise the most', the title was about 'crappy' RPG's but the actual question asked didnt necessarily mean bad games, just ones people dislike for whatever reason. Hence so much D20, D&D etc.

I cant stand D20, exalted etc, doesnt mean I think they are 'bad' games. i think thats the angle most people took.

scumofsociety wrote:Well, to be fair, the OP asked about games people 'despise the most', the title was about 'crappy' RPG's but the actual question asked didnt necessarily mean bad games, just ones people dislike for whatever reason.

Well, this thread is littered with the words "d20" and "D&D" in close conjunction to words such as "blasphemy", "abuse", "suck", "suck harder than suck", "crap", "sucking fun out of things", and so on, so forth.

Your reading of the posts contained herein is far more ... understanding, than my own. I just have a very hard time figuring why some fans of WFRP have such a need to denigrate D&D at every turn, and why it is such a threat to their style of gaming that it almost becomes a holy quest to convince other people that it has no redeeming qualities.

Especially since WFRP started out influenced in part by D&D, all those years ago.

/M

oh, ok, maybe i didnt read them properly then, i do have a habit of just skipping over things.

Hello all.

My name is Moracai, and I don't despise D&D. (

)

- I may not like the boardgame-like rules it has gotten during its third re-incarnation.

- I may have problems with the PCs being god-like when compared to commoners.

- I may not like the third edition-style sneak attack, and other minor rule thingies.

- I may not like the leveling and class based system.

But I am not saying that people can't have fun playing it!

MagnusSeter wrote:
Well, this thread is littered with the words "d20" and "D&D" in close conjunction to words such as "blasphemy", "abuse", "suck", "suck harder than suck", "crap", "sucking fun out of things", and so on, so forth.

Your reading of the posts contained herein is far more ... understanding, than my own. I just have a very hard time figuring why some fans of WFRP have such a need to denigrate D&D at every turn, and why it is such a threat to their style of gaming that it almost becomes a holy quest to convince other people that it has no redeeming qualities.

Especially since WFRP started out influenced in part by D&D, all those years ago.

/M

I understand what you're saying, and for the most part I agree. However, I will add that one reason for this attitude might be the tendency for D&D to creep into WFRP at inappropriate times, the Doomstones and Thousand Thrones campaigns are good examples of this, I think. Other than that, I think it's simply a matter of D&D, along with White Wolf, being an easy target due to it's popularity.

Yeah!!! The bastards sold themselves out. It`s all for the money I tell ya. Not like us. We`re staying true to the core, like any half-decent elite should.

The strength of my D20 hate is partly due to the huge number of D20 goons that proclaim it to be a gift from god and that all other rpgs are obsolete. After dealing with that for a few years I quickly grew to despise the game because of the fans (not all but many of the ones I've dealt with) it attracted.

I didn't mind the system at first, I mean it had it's flaws but all systems do. Then came the flood of product (wizard and 3rd party). Followed by the porting of original games into D20 (Fading Suns, Deadlands, etc). And then you had 3.5 show up. That combined with the above issues and the fans has firmly wedged it into the despised game category.

I like D&D. That is, I like the original D&D (You know, Basic Set, Expert Set, etc.). I also like AD&D (2nd Edition; first edition I don't know much about), especcially many of it's more original settings (Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun).

What I don't like is 'D&D v3/v3.5' for the very simple reason that it is entirely geared towards 'killing monsters and taking their stuff'. If I want that, I'll go and play the Munchkin RPG.

Just look at 'Dungeon Adventures Magazine' (now defunct). Up to, say, 1998, at least 30-60% of the adventures in it were original, creative focused on roleplaying and/or thinking more than killing things. After WotC took over, the magazine quickly became just a set of dungeons, with monsters, traps and loot and not much else.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't have a nice and interesting game with D&D v3/v3.5. I would prefer playing D&D with a good GM (DM) over playing WFRP with a bad one. Nor am I saying that nothing good was produced for v3/v3.5 (I like the 'Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting' Book, as well as some of it's early Supplements; Unapproacable East, Silver Marches, Lords of Darkness). So, it's not all bad.

However, the constant churning out of books which aren't much more than sets of new Prestige Classes, Feats, Spells and/or Monsters, as well as the fact that all these interlocked to such a degree that you really need 5-10 other books (besides the core books) to make use of significant parts of the material really grated on my nerves.

I'm sure they make more money this way than TSR ever did. That's why they did it in the first place. TSR went bust, after all, though AFAIK that had more to do with the out-of-control quantity of the material they produced (juggling 5 or 6 settings at any one point) than with the quality of the material. But WotC 'saved' the village only by destroying nearly everything that made it worth saving.

What I most resent WotC for is that they made the very conscious decision to cater to the lowest common denominators in gaming; the desires for killing and looting, and in that way, put the actual roleplaying to the sideline. IMO, RPG companies have a moral duty to produce material that raises the gamer up to a higher level of gaming, and thereby also to a higher level of self-reflection and insight in other people and social and mental processes.

Pretentious? Perhaps. Arrogant? Maybe. But I sure prefer being pretentious and arrogant to being limited to 60 varieties of irrelevancy, and I sure prefer learning the new to repeating the same over and over again, and I sure prefer personal, mental, social development over remaining the braindead "Must-have-new-Feats" 'killbot/zombie' that WotC wants me to be.

So that's why I don't like D&D v3/v3.5 and that's why I resent WotC; they destroyed something I did like.

Dr. Rudolf von Richten wrote:However, the constant churning out of books which aren't much more than sets of new Prestige Classes, Feats, Spells and/or Monsters, as well as the fact that all these interlocked to such a degree that you really need 5-10 other books (besides the core books) to make use of significant parts of the material really grated on my nerves.

On this subject, has anyone had time to look through the Inquisitor's Handbook for DH yet?

jadrax wrote:On this subject, has anyone had time to look through the Inquisitor's Handbook for DH yet?

Skimmed through it. Decided not to make a purchase.

Dr. Rudolf von Richten wrote:However, the constant churning out of books which aren't much more than sets of new Prestige Classes, Feats, Spells and/or Monsters, as well as the fact that all these interlocked to such a degree that you really need 5-10 other books (besides the core books) to make use of significant parts of the material really grated on my nerves.

Amen to that.

As far as I'm conserned, none of the splatbooks really exist.

I remember reading one D&D book where there was ready-made villains for different character levels. I was astounded to realise that I would need at least four other books (besides the core books) if I were to use those NPCs as they were written

jadrax wrote:

On this subject, has anyone had time to look through the Inquisitor's Handbook for DH yet?

Yeah, I bought it. If you like pages and pages of descriptions and stats for guns and equipment that are a bit different to the ones in the MRB then IH is for you.

EDIT: note that I got mine mail order without previewing the content

jadrax wrote:
On this subject, has anyone had time to look through the Inquisitor's Handbook for DH yet?

Yes I did, and found it to be insulting; page after page of new weapon stats and new uses for skills, making the game even more complex. What aggravates me the most is how pointless so much of it is, such as the specific rules informing the reader that Concealment can be used to remain hidden after firing from a hidden position, the five separate rules for using Demolitions to interact with explosives, that Inquiry can be used to question someone, or the expanded first aid rules for Medicae, etc. Like d20, most of it so complicated and detailed that it won't be used at the game table, the rest is so obvious that it didn't need to be detailed at all.

The new talents/traits introduced for the new backgrounds (or whatever DH calls the equivalent "race" option) seemed very d20 to me, in that many of them seemed pointless or needless reconfiguring of ideas the core rulebook talents already cover (the only example that comes to mind is the one that lowers the Fear rating of creatures by -1, which seems pointless considering the writer(s) could've used Fearless or the talent that gives you a +10% bonus against Fear).

You know I honestly don’t think iv ever played a game I didn’t enjoy! Maybe that’s just me thou as I really get into rollplaying and playing a character

Also iv recently got into LARP (although iv only been to one event http://www.tribes.org.uk/ im the guy in the blue in the second photo on the gallery)

oldscool wrote:You know I honestly don’t think iv ever played a game I didn’t enjoy! Maybe that’s just me thou as I really get into rollplaying and playing a character

Also iv recently got into LARP (although iv only been to one event http://www.tribes.org.uk/ im the guy in the blue in the second photo on the gallery)

LARP?!??!!??

Old School, Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
You're sinking too deeply!
Soon you'll never be able to come back to the light!

LARP is so low that it stand lower than the botton of the well.
It is so low that to reach it, you have to get to the botton of the well, and start digging downwards with a Spoon.
THATS how low LARP is...

jadrax wrote:
On this subject, has anyone had time to look through the Inquisitor's Handbook for DH yet?

I bought it on a whim; it's pretty much what has already been said: lots of guns and rules extensions that aren't really necessary. Also; Adeptas Sororitas (Nuns with Guns

), which are more powerful than other characters but are supposed to have stricter guidelines for RP-ing (kinda like D&D Paladins). Furthermore; more backgrounds and background special packages (which I like), 'prestige classes' (which I like as much as in D&D, that is: not at all). And finally about 12 pages each on religion and being an acolyte; easily the best part of the whole book, and it's less than 1/10th of it's volume

All in all: it shows how BI wanted to develop the game; which is very different from what I would have preferred. It's really too bad, since I do like the setting.

Just for those intrested that dont mind D&D Check out Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed sometime, (and Arcana Evolved (the new incarnation), which changed the setting a bit but is still okl though Unearthed is better IMO).

I have found that it tends to be a bit more focused towards the Role-playing aspects thats typical 3rd ed, and good for those high fantasy style games. Though as always it may just be the people I play it with that make the difference