RPGs and general knowledge

[Stark]

I too am old and I strongly disagree, let me explain.

Ignoring the rules has nothing to do with it, if you like and get along with the people you are playing with the time spent learning the system is worth your time. If you don't like and or don't get along with the people you are playing with it does not matter how good the system is you will have a shitty time.

Wee hijack.

Anyway, I don't agree. If your intent is merely to have a silly time with your mates you don't need any rules at all, or the rules don't matter. This makes it difficult to use this as an indication of rules quality.

For example, DragonQuest (does anyone still remember DragonQuest? assume not) as complex and hacked together system as was ever created. Some of the fondest memories I have of some of the most developed characters that I ever played happened in that system. Because of the people who I was playing with were willing to take the time to actually develop the characters and world. Act in character and treat the world like it was real.

I like != is good.

During the same time period I played in a GURPS campaign that was pure meta-gaming, power gaming, hack and slay nonsense. I kind of remember trying to develop this character and could never stay interested. While GURPS is by far the better game system, and I have had fun with other groups playing GURPS that group almost destroyed my interest in GURPS as a system due to the people.

I've never used DragonQuest, but your statement that GURPS is 'by far' better absolutely terrifies me.

I agree the original three book set of D&D, through first and second edition sucked as a game system and screamed for "house rules" and "fixes". And I agree that this is a negative reflection on the game system...however with the right people you can have a good time with even the worst game system - even unmodified 3 brown books D&D. Which was my point that the game system helps but does not make the gaming experience.

It's ironic that looking back at 2nd edition DnD you can really see that it was the 80s version of forum feedback - a whole bunch of band-aids and hacks thought up at conventions and published as 'rules'. Someone thought skill systems were good - insert them thoughtlessly!

And having a fun time is far from irrelevant, if you are not having fun why are you playing RPGs? If you are having fun why do you care what "game system" you are using?

So if you have a system with a pile of nonsesne you have to ignore, work around or jury-rig and another system that works fine or requires less invention or study to be not-broken, you're saying that's irrelevant? I mean, look at Millenium's End - it has a massive overhead that isn't really necessary (since 90% of what you do in char creation is fucking irrelevant) and that makes it a poor system, no matter how good the combat or progression system (or setting or ambience or whatever) were.

Now, I may start another thread to discuss the apparent dislike of D20 in general that has been expressed in this thread, rather than hijacking this thread.

That might be an idea. Let's see how many 'not as bad as WEG d6' posts we can get?

[tchizek]

I too am old and I strongly disagree, let me explain.

Ignoring the rules has nothing to do with it, if you like and get along with the people you are playing with the time spent learning the system is worth your time. If you don't like and or don't get along with the people you are playing with it does not matter how good the system is you will have a shitty time.

Wee hijack.

Oh okay if you insist !

Anyway, I don't agree. If your intent is merely to have a silly time with your mates you don't need any rules at all, or the rules don't matter. This makes it difficult to use this as an indication of rules quality.

For example, DragonQuest (does anyone still remember DragonQuest? assume not) as complex and hacked together system as was ever created. Some of the fondest memories I have of some of the most developed characters that I ever played happened in that system. Because of the people who I was playing with were willing to take the time to actually develop the characters and world. Act in character and treat the world like it was real.

I like != is good.

Okay I kind of buy that, the rules give a framework and from what you are saying a bad framework is worse than a good framework.

I will agree with that, as far as it goes, but people seemed to be saying that the rules matter more than the people… I don’t agree with that part.

During the same time period I played in a GURPS campaign that was pure meta-gaming, power gaming, hack and slay nonsense. I kind of remember trying to develop this character and could never stay interested. While GURPS is by far the better game system, and I have had fun with other groups playing GURPS that group almost destroyed my interest in GURPS as a system due to the people.

I've never used DragonQuest, but your statement that GURPS is 'by far' better absolutely terrifies me.

Oh yea, DQ was a hacked up mess.
On the other hand that does not indicate that I am a complete GURPS fan.
It was better than DQ and someone above had said it was better than D20 plus the time worked - I tried GURPS for the first time when I was deep into DQ .

I agree the original three book set of D&D, through first and second edition sucked as a game system and screamed for "house rules" and "fixes". And I agree that this is a negative reflection on the game system...however with the right people you can have a good time with even the worst game system - even unmodified 3 brown books D&D. Which was my point that the game system helps but does not make the gaming experience.

It's ironic that looking back at 2nd edition DnD you can really see that it was the 80s version of forum feedback - a whole bunch of band-aids and hacks thought up at conventions and published as 'rules'. Someone thought skill systems were good - insert them thoughtlessly!

Oh absolutely, but you need to remember that at the time 2nd edition was basically the “best” game in town.

You had wonderful choices like Runequest (5 minutes to resolve a single hit since the goal was “accuracy” – which the game designers took to mean exactly how badly do you get hurt when a sword hits you and where does the sword hit.)

Palladium, which took all the bad parts about D&D 2nd edition and hacked on a skill system that makes GURPS look straightforward.

GURPS 1st edition, which was GURPS without all of the fixes that came later – roll piles of dice to decide anything.

Plus some real stinkers like DragonQuest (I liked it but the game system was complex enough that it took a math major with a calculator to work out your to hit percentages – this was the first game that I automated the character sheet for, because the players were taking so long to figure out their hit percents…) and Stormbringer (Runequest with the added bonus that Elric of Melnibone was running around killing everyone…), Tunnels and Trolls (fun and funny for a laugh but not a very good game system) and so many more that I forget them.

The fairly good systems that are around today (Any of the Whitewolf games, any of the D20’s, GURPS 4th edition (the last one I played), any of the story based game systems) just did not exist. It was play one of the sinkers and “fix” it or roll your own.

Then once you have fixed or rolled your game system it takes an act of GM to change systems.

And having a fun time is far from irrelevant, if you are not having fun why are you playing RPGs? If you are having fun why do you care what "game system" you are using?

So if you have a system with a pile of nonsesne you have to ignore, work around or jury-rig and another system that works fine or requires less invention or study to be not-broken, you're saying that's irrelevant? I mean, look at Millenium's End - it has a massive overhead that isn't really necessary (since 90% of what you do in char creation is fucking irrelevant) and that makes it a poor system, no matter how good the combat or progression system (or setting or ambience or whatever) were.

It’s fine to say “use the better game system” but…once you have mastered a stinker game system and modified it to it fits your play style, that becomes nonsense.

Now, I may start another thread to discuss the apparent dislike of D20 in general that has been expressed in this thread, rather than hijacking this thread.

That might be an idea. Let's see how many 'not as bad as WEG d6' posts we can get?

I will see if I can come up with the reasons I like D20 and why I don’t like D20…

[Ghost Rider]

Really, why the fuck do people take other's bait?

Ok, Stark's point boils down to this. If you have to heavily modify a system, to make it better that means the system is FLAWED thus for him...sucks. No great explaination needed because he is following this train of logic:

1. System is flawed.
2. System require heavy *house* interaction.
3. Flawed = bad = suck.

Throwing your goddamn fucking opinion why it wasn't to you or why you enjoyed it, or there were worse does not refute his train of logic and in fact just perpetuates the illogical fanboy.

[Stark]

That's right; anyone can have fun with a shit engine, and I actually quite enjoy the Chaosium 1/20th system, even though it's unsuited for either swords OR horror + guns and the 'more than 20' skill ratings are obviously hacked in (and char creation is presented in the most retarded way in CoC). That doesn't make it good, and I can both enjoy it and recognise that the designers could have improved it. Let's not forget Traveller's amazing character creation system, which was so broken that simply writing it out in a coherent form (instead of all over a series of sourcebooks) made it take 10m instead of an hour.

This is really the strength of that system Arthur Tuxedo cooked up - it is simple to play and understand, but most importantly works organically from the ground up and doesn't require tables full of exceptions or extra rolls or constant look-ups or bizarre maths.

[tchizek]

Really, why the fuck do people take other's bait?

Ok, Stark's point boils down to this. If you have to heavily modify a system, to make it better that means the system is FLAWED thus for him...sucks. No great explaination needed because he is following this train of logic:

1. System is flawed.
2. System require heavy *house* interaction.
3. Flawed = bad = suck.

Throwing your goddamn fucking opinion why it wasn't to you or why you enjoyed it, or there were worse does not refute his train of logic and in fact just perpetuates the illogical fanboy.

Okay now I am just confused - I was trying to have a rational discussion.

Is that a reason to rant at me?

I happen to disagree with you and look I managed to say that without a single insult or swear about it.

So far what you have said is "I disagree with you so you suck".

Wow, witty and to the point.

[Stark]

Oh god not complaining about swearing.

My point is quality of a system is not about how much you 'enjoy' playing, since that's down to GM style, relationships, how drunk you are, setting, etc and thus doesn't accurately reflect 'quality'. If you have two systems, and one requires less effort to paper over the giant flaws and house-ruling and printing of look-up tables, then I think that makes it a 'better' system. Saying 'wah I like xyz crap system' is totally irrelevant.

I mean, people bag on Buck Rogers XXV all the time, but IT'S JUST DND. Take the DND engine out of it's absurd-yet-popular setting and it's clearer to see it's massive gaping flaws. Turns out it's a bit more complex than 'omg i had fun'. I've never claimed you can't have fun with a shit system, but that's no defence for any objective, real mechanical problems.

[tchizek]

That's right; anyone can have fun with a shit engine, and I actually quite enjoy the Chaosium 1/20th system, even though it's unsuited for either swords OR horror + guns and the 'more than 20' skill ratings are obviously hacked in (and char creation is presented in the most retarded way in CoC). That doesn't make it good, and I can both enjoy it and recognise that the designers could have improved it. Let's not forget Traveller's amazing character creation system, which was so broken that simply writing it out in a coherent form (instead of all over a series of sourcebooks) made it take 10m instead of an hour.

This is really the strength of that system Arthur Tuxedo cooked up - it is simple to play and understand, but most importantly works organically from the ground up and doesn't require tables full of exceptions or extra rolls or constant look-ups or bizarre maths.

Okay, I guess we are not arguing then .

I did a goggle on "Arthur Tuxedo" and will take a look at the game system - frankly I had never heard of it before you pointed me in that direction...so maybe I will be a convert, or maybe not.

(oh and yea the original Traveler may have had the worst character generation system ever!)

[Stark]

Well I really like the old 70s Traveller char system (random deaths and all), but the original layout was awful and adding in the extra rules (with no references and poorly explained) made it even worse. I remember making an army character using the expanded career rules, and having to stop and have a discussion every few steps since the different books didn't really mesh (being made by different nerd forumites). Simply copying the rules into a Word file and collating the different shit made it really, really fast, even with all the extra career stuff.

And then you die, and have to start again. LOL!

Arthur used to post here on SDN a lot, and I participated in one of his tests for his system (back when I had time). It was a great, easy system and the guys I played with were hot shit - it was text-only but was better actual role-playing (and faster) than 99% of actual RP groups I've played with.

[Ghost Rider]

Really, why the fuck do people take other's bait?

Ok, Stark's point boils down to this. If you have to heavily modify a system, to make it better that means the system is FLAWED thus for him...sucks. No great explaination needed because he is following this train of logic:

1. System is flawed.
2. System require heavy *house* interaction.
3. Flawed = bad = suck.

Throwing your goddamn fucking opinion why it wasn't to you or why you enjoyed it, or there were worse does not refute his train of logic and in fact just perpetuates the illogical fanboy.

Okay now I am just confused - I was trying to have a rational discussion.

Is that a reason to rant at me?

I happen to disagree with you and look I managed to say that without a single insult or swear about it.

So far what you have said is "I disagree with you so you suck".

Wow, witty and to the point.

I really don't give a fuck if you have a problem with profanity but if you want to be that much a fuckhead, the door is over there. And rational, my ass dumbshit...you were being a passive agressive pissant that didn't like his particular train of logic and tried to use personal anecdotes as evidence. The point was you claimed it was good because you liked it, which is the same as me claiming I like lemonade and if you don't you're fucking wrong.

[tchizek]

Really, why the fuck do people take other's bait?

Ok, Stark's point boils down to this. If you have to heavily modify a system, to make it better that means the system is FLAWED thus for him...sucks. No great explaination needed because he is following this train of logic:

1. System is flawed.
2. System require heavy *house* interaction.
3. Flawed = bad = suck.

Throwing your goddamn fucking opinion why it wasn't to you or why you enjoyed it, or there were worse does not refute his train of logic and in fact just perpetuates the illogical fanboy.

Okay now I am just confused - I was trying to have a rational discussion.

Is that a reason to rant at me?

I happen to disagree with you and look I managed to say that without a single insult or swear about it.

So far what you have said is "I disagree with you so you suck".

Wow, witty and to the point.

I really don't give a fuck if you have a problem with profanity but if you want to be that much a fuckhead, the door is over there. And rational, my ass dumbshit...you were being a passive agressive pissant that didn't like his particular train of logic and tried to use personal anecdotes as evidence. The point was you claimed it was good because you liked it, which is the same as me claiming I like lemonade and if you don't you're fucking wrong.

I know I shouldn't respond but you know I just can't resist...

Are you this rude in person or is it just on the Internet?

[Edi]

Oh, wow, in before the ban...

and I was just going to take exception to this:

For example, DragonQuest (does anyone still remember DragonQuest? assume not) as complex and hacked together system as was ever created. Some of the fondest memories I have of some of the most developed characters that I ever played happened in that system. Because of the people who I was playing with were willing to take the time to actually develop the characters and world. Act in character and treat the world like it was real.

I remember DQ well. It's actually my preferred system for fantasy roleplaying and I have managed to gather all three editions of it. The system is not nearly as hacked together as it looks like at first, unless you're only familiar with the 3rd Edition piece of shit which TSR eviscrated. The 2nd Edition was much, much better. The rules work well, but they are fairly complex in many situations.

The biggest problem with DQ is that the learning curve is fucking steep, but once past that hurdle, it works wonders. The good thing is that you can add custom stuff without touching the core mechanics at all, to cover things that were left out of the core stuff (which is pretty thin on some of the non-combat skill side), but even the plain vanilla game works.

If anyone wants more info, including where to get their hands on this RPG system, PM me.

[Ghost Rider]

I really don't give a fuck if you have a problem with profanity but if you want to be that much a fuckhead, the door is over there. And rational, my ass dumbshit...you were being a passive agressive pissant that didn't like his particular train of logic and tried to use personal anecdotes as evidence. The point was you claimed it was good because you liked it, which is the same as me claiming I like lemonade and if you don't you're fucking wrong.

I know I shouldn't respond but you know I just can't resist...

Are you this rude in person or is it just on the Internet?

You want to continue baiting me because my initial response was you were being an illogical twit and I was performing the action as a moderator to demonstrate why. You hijacked the thread, you were the one continuing the illogical discourse, and now you're the one baiting the moderator. I'll give you the free advice and read the rules on this particular.

So you can keep going and let's see where the snide remark takes you, we have a forum for that as well.