What’s a critically acclaimed RPG you don’t like?

[Voros]

V5 is quite a good game.

 

[AsenRG]

V5 is quite a good game.

Funny enough, wife got it as a belated birthday present...
She still hasn't read it. I suspect I'd read it before her, once I finish Delta Green, and summarize the rules for her, as I'm wont to do in most games.

My group's reaction to VtM and WtA was "In what way is this superior to playing vampires and werethings in Runequest or Chivalry & Sorcery?" Nobody had a positive answer, and as the negatives were considerable as far as we were concerned (mainly in that WW's game engine absolutely sucked), that was the end of the matter.

You're one of the few guys whose group I could almost envy!

 

[AsenRG]

To do well (and I GM ORE a lot) it does require a level of interpretation that isn't for everyone.

But...but I ran ORE in my "I prefer codified rules with little interpretation, so the results could be predictable and we could just play on" period, with a group sharing the preference, and there wasn't any issue!
Granted, I've seldom bothered with powers (just as I didn't when playing GURPS). The only time I did, I took StarORE as a base, and renamed the Force powers to Chi powers, saying "that's all that exists in the setting".

I think it's the fact that the use of the system and the math involved are so unlike any other game. I love it, but am hit or miss on getting others to play it for extended periods of time.

Well, I've found that showing the people the table with odds of success (and a graph I made on the spot) was good enough to explain the math. I also added the explanation from Unknown Armies and GURPS: "these are low odds for normal people, but that's for shooting when the other side is shooting back - you'd get large bonuses if nobody was opposing you". I also pointed to them that the break point is at about 5-6 dice (where you're likely to have at least one success, despite acting under stress).

Then, I explained to them that there are four ways to do dicepools (additive, success-counting, pairs-based, and taking highest) and some are superior in their ability to provide extra information about what has happened, and the speed of resolving the roll. I also pointed out to them that ORE is using one of the superior ones, giving you info not only of the quality, but of the speed as well. (Taking highest is superior in speed, and can also give you extra info by counting "how many dice of your pool beat the highest die in the opposing pool, basically taking all the advantages of success-counting types of systems).
Once we passed that, it all went swimmingly. Though the fact that these were mostly new players (and one with VtM experience, but she was willing to not argue, since she didn't think the system to be the strong point of the game - despite being a fan).

 

[Trippy]

My group's reaction to VtM and WtA was "In what way is this superior to playing vampires and werethings in Runequest or Chivalry & Sorcery?" Nobody had a positive answer, and as the negatives were considerable as far as we were concerned (mainly in that WW's game engine absolutely sucked), that was the end of the matter.

Well, I think it would be an unusual application of playing either RuneQuest or Chivalry & Sorcery to end up playing vampires or werethings. Neither game really details much lore about them, or presents Clans/Tribes specific to particular types of culture. Neither is set in the modern nights, or in any way attuned to playing them in the setting outlined in the WoD games. There is nothing specifically in the mechanics designed to play the themes of the WoD games.

In that sense it would be like arguing in what way is playing RuneQuest or Chivalry or Sorcery superior for playing in an ancient world or medieval fantasy setting, respectively rather than using WoD games instead. The answer is self evident.

You could make an argument about the relative merits of each of the game engines, but I would argue that V5 has positively tightened up the WoD game rules in that respect too - to the extent that neither RQ or C&C has anything close to the mechanics required to run the type of game that V5 offers.

 

[Trippy]

OK, wary about mentioning this one, but if we are being frank about stuff, then I dislike a lot of the retro-clone games that proliferate in the hobby these days.

To a degree, it is a criticism of things like OSR, as a movement, but it is more broader than that. It is less to do with the fact that they exist or have fans that like them, but rather when games end up being overly praised over design features they have literally copied from an original source, or sometimes when they are even praised as being superior to the game they have literally copied.

I may be being ignorant as I haven’t read or played Zweihander, but I couldn’t believe it won an industry award a couple of years ago for example. The writer used to turn up on forums expressly stating that the game was Warhammer (I think the actual WFRP license was in limbo at the time) and was given warnings about it on some forums from memory. Maybe there is something extra in the rules or the design I am missing, that stands it apart.... but worthy of an industry award? Really?!

I could argue similar things about all sorts of other games in terms of both system (Pathfinder, various OD&D clones, Cepheus, etc) and setting (various alternative versions of Call of Cthulhu, some GURPS or other generic system adaptations, etc). Like I say, I don’t begrudge these things from existing or having support. In many cases, I appreciate the business aspects of their existence too (like Pathfinder, for example). It just rubs me up the wrong way when I start hearing fans or even the creators themselves try to use them as a stick to beat the original game with, or just not acknowledging they are riding on the wave of the original game’s success.

 

[Sharrow]

You're one of the few guys whose group I could almost envy!

I miss playing with those guys. They were my high school buddies and now we're scattered across the globe and I've lost contact with most of them.

 

[Sharrow]

Well, I think it would be an unusual application of playing either RuneQuest or Chivalry & Sorcery to end up playing vampires or werethings. Neither game really details much lore about them, or presents Clans/Tribes specific to particular types of culture. Neither is set in the modern nights, or in any way attuned to playing them in the setting outlined in the WoD games. There is nothing specifically in the mechanics designed to play the themes of the WoD games.

There's a reasonable amount on vampires (Vivamort runelords/priests) in Cults of Terror.

You could make an argument about the relative merits of each of the game engines, but I would argue that V5 has positively tightened up the WoD game rules in that respect too - to the extent that neither RQ or C&C has anything close to the mechanics required to run the type of game that V5 offers.

This was long, long before V5 existed.

 

[Trippy]

There's a reasonable amount on vampires (Vivamort runelords/priests) in Cults of Terror.


This was long, long before V5 existed.

I have Cults of Terror, and really Vivamort is really not set up the same way as the Vampire game. Moreover, the vampires were set up as antagonists rather than for players.

 

[Ralph Dula]

I have Cults of Terror, and really Vivamort is really not set up the same way as the Vampire game. Moreover, the vampires were set up as antagonists rather than for players.

TIL: An ad back in the day (in Pegasus, I think) made it sound like they were written up for player use in that volume.

 

[Trippy]

TIL: An ad back in the day (in Pegasus, I think) made it sound like they were written up for player use in that volume.

You can theoretically play any monster in RQ as a player if you want, as that is how the rules are set up, but this particular cult is mostly external to civilization and doesn’t hold sway over mortal affairs. It isn’t the same premise as that suggested in Vampire. Moreover, the Cults of Terror, as a whole are expressly not meant to be seen as potential cult options for players.

You could argue that the Cults in Runequest are forerunners of the group affiliations you get in Vampire and the other WoD games. It is notable that Mark Rein-Hagen was a big fan of Glorantha, playing in a long term campaign before he became a game designer, and was actually involved in the promotion of Guide to Glorantha when it was Kickstarted a few years ago. I wouldn’t deny the influence of Runequest/Glorantha on Vampire and the WoD. However, saying you could run Vampire or Werewolf as is, just using what is on offer in Runequest is stretching it. They are different games.

 

[Sosthenes]

Add me to the Savage Worlds crowd. I've seen most of it done already in Torg/Masterbook and dice steps are the second worst resolution mechanism (after custom dice). Also one of the reasons why I can't get into Cortex Prime. Or DCC.

In addition, I think the editions of D&D that are considered almost holy grail like by some grognards, namely B/X and AD&D 1E are the worst of the bunch.

 

[Sharrow]

You can theoretically play any monster in RQ as a player if you want, as that is how the rules are set up, but this particular cult is mostly external to civilization and doesn’t hold sway over mortal affairs. It isn’t the same premise as that suggested in Vampire. Moreover, the Cults of Terror, as a whole are expressly not meant to be seen as potential cult options for players.

You could argue that the Cults in Runequest are forerunners of the group affiliations you get in Vampire and the other WoD games. It is notable that Mark Rein-Hagen was a big fan of Glorantha, playing in a long term campaign before he became a game designer, and was actually involved in the promotion of Guide to Glorantha when it was Kickstarted a few years ago. I wouldn’t deny the influence of Runequest/Glorantha on Vampire and the WoD. However, saying you could run Vampire or Werewolf as is, just using what is on offer in Runequest is stretching it. They are different games.

That wasn't the point. The point was that my guys couldn't see anything superior in the WW games to just using existing games to play vampires or werewolves. And frankly, if using just the core rulebooks of VtM or WtA 1e/2e there was enough set up required that you could set up a similar (allowing for tech and culture differences in the default settings) campaign using RQ or C&S. In fact, while the central themes of a campaigns were different, we'd already played games about shapeshifters using RQ in the 80s.

The games of VtM I did see played back then did nothing to change my opinion - they were very much 'amoral supers with fangs', which didn't much appeal. Add in a game engine that didn't actually produce outcomes that matched what the game said given levels of skills should, and there was no interest from me or my mates.

 

[Korgoth]

I can understand why some people might prefer not to have fantasy elements in their sci-fi, but I love me some Street Shammies calling spirits in a dark alley. And all your hard sci-fi will never overcome the cool factor of an orc with a cyberarm.

When I was young and Shadowrun first came out I didn't want any Peanut-Butter (Magic) in my Chocolate (Sci-Fi), but with age I've mellowed and really like the Shadowrun Settings aesthetic. I'm also into Vancian/Dying-Earth/Numera Science Fantasy now.

I've oft wondered if that's a common theme with gamers maybe? When were young gamers we gravitate to more serious, hard, rules crunch systems (I loved the minutia of building Champions Characters back then, though I still enjoy it today as well). But as we age we move towards less serious, don't want to say soft, but maybe less granular system.

I share your preference for ordinary people over monsters, but let's just say vampires are fear of sickness and transgressive behaviour in the original myths. Sexual predators are a later addition.

But admittedly, my first reaction to being offered to play Vampire was "what, play the things I killed last week and get killed by an actual hero, doesn't really sound fun"!

I remember when it became popular with about half my RPG gaming friend and I thought to myself at the time (still kinda do) WTF, you want to play a viscous monster that feeds on humanity as if were cattle.

I did join a Vampire LARP once where I insisted I be able to play a Catholic Priest, normal human. When I managed to wheedle my way next to the local "Prince" I staked him (with a chopstick prop). Needless to say I was instantly slain thereafter and not invited back to the LARP.

As for an a critically acclaimed RPG for me it's Rune Quest.

The way some people in the fandom and industry talk about the Glorantha setting you'd think it was the second coming or something. To me it's just a mishmash hodgepodge of Bronze Age Cultures and Mythology. And don't get me started on Talking Ducks, Tapair people who herd/eat mindless humans... ugh.

I'm a big history buff and one of my pet peeves is settings which place geographically disparate cultures next to each other. Say Medieval England Pastiche right across a small ocean from Sengoku Japan. Or worse Gunpowder, Early Renaissance Germany next to High Middle Ages France (I'm looking at you Warhammer Old World, even though I luv ya to bits) A cultures neighbors have a yuge impact on it's own cultures and even more so tech level.

 

[Gabriel]

I've wondered if that's a common theme with gamers maybe? When were young gamers we gravitate to more serious, hard, rules crunch systems. But as we age we move towards less serious, don't want to say soft, but maybe less granular system.

Unscientifically speaking, it does seem a recurring trajectory.

I don't think younger gamers really gravitate to more serious, but I do think that younger gamers tend to view things as more serious, no matter how not-serious they really are.

Personally, I'm not sure if my appreciation for crunch has changed. It sometimes feels more like I'm more cognizant of my preferences of where I'm willing to let crunch have its domain and let floaty gm fiat have its domain.

 

[Baulderstone]

I may be being ignorant as I haven’t read or played Zweihander, but I couldn’t believe it won an industry award a couple of years ago for example. The writer used to turn up on forums expressly stating that the game literally was Warhammer (I think the actual WFRP license was in limbo at the time), and was given warnings about it on some forums from memory. Maybe there is something extra in the rules or the design I am missing, that stands it apart.... but worthy of an industry award? Really?!

I don't know about Daniel Fox ever claiming to own the official license, but is seems in line with his generally wormlike behavior. Back before we banned him here, he tried to spread some BS story in the WFRP thread that the designers of the new edition had to throw out all their work and start over after seeing Zweihander.

As for the larger topic of retroclones, my opinion is complicated. In general, I am okay with people putting out their own versions of games, either because a game is no longer supported, or because it has mutated into something different in a new edition.

Zweihander is a strange case, in that it is the work of mainstream publisher, Andrews McMeel, which is now using WFRP as their house system for other games they produce. It feels a lot sketchier to me than some fan putting their homebrew on DriveThru, especially as they have the nerve to even steal the "grim and perilous" tag line from the original game. It's also a case where there is not only an ongoing version of the original game that is still largely compatible with the original. It even has Graeme Davis, one of the original creators, making strong material for it.

Pathfinder feels like a different case to me. When D&D 3E came out, WotC decided there was no money in printing adventures or other books of use to GMs, and focused mostly on making books of feats and prestige classes dusted with a thin layer of flavor text. Paizo stepped in, licensing Dungeon and Dragon, and basically inventing the Adventure Path model popular with D&D players today. While I am not a big fan of the model, it has been a huge success.

When 4E came out, WotC basically threw the companies that had been supporting it, like Paizo, to the wolves. While I don't really like Pathfinder, I respect Paizo for turning the situation around on WotC.

 

[ffilz]

Well, I think it would be an unusual application of playing either RuneQuest or Chivalry & Sorcery to end up playing vampires or werethings. Neither game really details much lore about them, or presents Clans/Tribes specific to particular types of culture. Neither is set in the modern nights, or in any way attuned to playing them in the setting outlined in the WoD games. There is nothing specifically in the mechanics designed to play the themes of the WoD games.

In that sense it would be like arguing in what way is playing RuneQuest or Chivalry or Sorcery superior for playing in an ancient world or medieval fantasy setting, respectively rather than using WoD games instead. The answer is self evident.

You could make an argument about the relative merits of each of the game engines, but I would argue that V5 has positively tightened up the WoD game rules in that respect too - to the extent that neither RQ or C&C has anything close to the mechanics required to run the type of game that V5 offers.

That assumes one's possible interest in playing Vampires aligns with WoD. Maybe the players have different ideas. Back in the very early 1990s some friends were using AD&D to play vampires in a modern setting. I think they started from a fantasy setting and gated into the modern setting. I'm also not sure if they were all playing vampires or if some were playing other sorts of undead (I think other sorts of undead WERE present). Since Vampire came out in 1991 they may or may not have been inspired by it, but my observation of their game was that it was an awesome concept and game and seemed to be working well with the AD&D base.

WoD presents a specific vampires and werewolves etc. in a modern world setting. There are other interpretations. I think Patricia Briggs Mercedes Thompson books are another take. I never watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer or any of the Twilight movies, but I think they are also different takes.

 

[Acmegamer]

Doesn't Zweihaunder also have some sort of funky hat mechanic? Or am I thinking of something else?

 

[Trippy]

That wasn't the point. The point was that my guys couldn't see anything superior in the WW games to just using existing games to play vampires or werewolves. And frankly, if using just the core rulebooks of VtM or WtA 1e/2e there was enough set up required that you could set up a similar (allowing for tech and culture differences in the default settings) campaign using RQ or C&S. In fact, while the central themes of a campaigns were different, we'd already played games about shapeshifters using RQ in the 80s.

The games of VtM I did see played back then did nothing to change my opinion - they were very much 'amoral supers with fangs', which didn't much appeal. Add in a game engine that didn't actually produce outcomes that matched what the game said given levels of skills should, and there was no interest from me or my mates.

I’m not really buying the point then. The fact that you are arguing that you would buy the Vampire or Werewolf books in order to access the setting/set up, then in a sense you’ve already answered your point. The superiority lies in the fact that the games are tailor made for purpose already, and you don’t need to spend time trying to adapt or convert rules to make them work in a different game. You also get a line of supplements and a large gaming community with which to draw inspiration from. The superiority lies in having all of that support and set up.

While the 'superheroes with fangs’ is a long standing criticism, you still get things like personality mechanics, humanity tracks, differentiated affiliations with various disciplines/gifts that characterize them that forms the bulk of the game. And regardless, of the math of the system mechanics, they were all easily accessible and well presented. Runequest is more mechanical in nature, and for some less math-ey inclined gamers, things like dots on the character sheets were a lot easier to read.

All said, this is a thread for people to air their dislikes - so I don’t deny you that opportunity! However, in terms of relating to your criticism, I just don’t see it.

 

[Gabriel]

Doesn't Zweihaunder also have some sort of funky hat mechanic? Or am I thinking of something else?

OK, I have no interest in Zweihander, but I have to know if there is actually a "funky hat mechanic" and what it is if there is one.

 

[ffilz]

I’m not really buying the point then. The fact that you are arguing that you would buy the Vampire or Werewolf books in order to access the setting/set up then in a sense you’ve already answered your point. The superiority lies in the fact that the games are tailor made for purpose already, and you don’t need to spend time trying to adapt or convert rules to make them work in a different game. You also get a line of supplements and a large gaming community with which to draw inspiration from. The superiority lies in having all of that support and set up.

What's wrong with using setting supplements from one system for a different system? I hear GURPS people talk all the time about "cool setting, I'd run it with GURPS."

Now absolutely, using a different system DOES change the setting.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Zweihander is a strange case, in that it is the work of mainstream publisher, Andrews McMeel, which is now using WFRP as their house system for other games they produce. It feels a lot sketchier to me than some fan putting their homebrew on DriveThru, especially as they have the nerve to even steal the "grim and perilous" tag line from the original game. It's also a case where there is not only an ongoing version of the original game that is still largely compatible with the original. It even has Graeme Davis, one of the original creators, making strong material for it.

Yeah, I have similar slight ickiness about a mainstream publisher essentially making money from somebody else's IP that you do and I don't have the same history with Fox you do.

But, on the flipside, I think the way Games Workshop treated Simon Burley is disgusting so fuck them.

 

[Skywalker]

I have run Zweihander and don’t recall a funky hat mechanic. Sounds like a mistake by the poster.

 

[Trippy]

What's wrong with using setting supplements from one system for a different system? I hear GURPS people talk all the time about "cool setting, I'd run it with GURPS."

Now absolutely, using a different system DOES change the setting.

Nothing wrong with it, although I wouldn't make the claim of superiority just because you have a system preference. In some cases, I think system adaptations can seemingly miss the point of the original though - like GURPS: Castle Falkenstein, for example.

 

[Necrozius]

I have run Zweihander and don’t recall a funky hat mechanic. Sounds like a mistake by the poster.

I believe that the "funny hat" is this thing: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/produc...Zweihander-RPG?filters=940_2200_150_44294_0_0

It's just a DIY print and play accessory that you can wear and it has big attachable "seals" that show the GM and other players your most important stats (rough equivalents of AC and HP).

 

[Acmegamer]

OK, I have no interest in Zweihander, but I have to know if there is actually a "funky hat mechanic" and what it is if there is one.

Ok, I had to know why I was thinking that. I guess it was an April Fools joke. Lol I didn't follow the development of Zweihander Rpg closely, so I can see how I misunderstood this since I think I noted it on DriveThruRpg page some time last year or the year before.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

 

[Lofgeornost]

I believe that the "funny hat" is this thing: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/produc...Zweihander-RPG?filters=940_2200_150_44294_0_0

It's just a DIY print and play accessory that you can wear and it has big attachable "seals" that show the GM and other players your most important stats (rough equivalents of AC and HP).

That makes sense. The only RPG I could think of that makes a bit deal out of hats is Dying Earth, and there it isn't mechanical, for the most part.

 

[zanshin]

Thanks for the suggestion but if we are talking regular sheet probably not. Maybe if it was provolone or swiss.

I only do it with Cheddar, Double Gloucester or Red Leicester. Not sure what that translates to in your cheeses.

 

[Ravenswing]

Moreover, the Cults of Terror, as a whole are expressly not meant to be seen as potential cult options for players.

At the time Cults of Terror came out, I was actually considering switching to GMing RQ. And that disclaimer on the title page put paid to that: I was livid and disgusted that they knuckled under to the Satanic Panic, and my mood wasn't improved in flipping through it to see that the first-person character vignettes had characters discussing system mechanic numbers in-character. So much for THAT idea.

 

[Voros]

I don't know about Daniel Fox ever claiming to own the official license, but is seems in line with his generally wormlike behavior. Back before we banned him here, he tried to spread some BS story in the WFRP thread that the designers of the new edition had to throw out all their work and start over after seeing Zweihander.

As for the larger topic of retroclones, my opinion is complicated. In general, I am okay with people putting out their own versions of games, either because a game is no longer supported, or because it has mutated into something different in a new edition.

Zweihander is a strange case, in that it is the work of mainstream publisher, Andrews McMeel, which is now using WFRP as their house system for other games they produce. It feels a lot sketchier to me than some fan putting their homebrew on DriveThru, especially as they have the nerve to even steal the "grim and perilous" tag line from the original game. It's also a case where there is not only an ongoing version of the original game that is still largely compatible with the original. It even has Graeme Davis, one of the original creators, making strong material for it.

Pathfinder feels like a different case to me. When D&D 3E came out, WotC decided there was no money in printing adventures or other books of use to GMs, and focused mostly on making books of feats and prestige classes dusted with a thin layer of flavor text. Paizo stepped in, licensing Dungeon and Dragon, and basically inventing the Adventure Path model popular with D&D players today. While I am not a big fan of the model, it has been a huge success.

When 4E came out, WotC basically threw the companies that had been supporting it, like Paizo, to the wolves. While I don't really like Pathfinder, I respect Paizo for turning the situation around on WotC.

I agree totally about Zweihander but the other Andrews McNeel rpg books I have are for 5e or very classic D&D oriented and quite good.

Do they have more Zweihander material in the pipeline?

 

[robertsconley]

Now absolutely, using a different system DOES change the setting.

Only if you let it. I had some experience in that regard.

 

[SirFrog]

PbtA, because it is like CrossFit

 

[ffilz]

Now absolutely, using a different system DOES change the setting.

Only if you let it. I had some experience in that regard.

How can it not unless the two systems are very close in all the things they handle.

Combat lethality can change the setting. Many systems have very different combat lethality from D&D. That changes how scary the horde of orcs is. It can make "megadungeons" very different.

Differences in magic can be major. Ultimately I decided Cold Iron was not a good fit for Harn. Only by radically changing the assumptions of the magic system could it be made to fit.

Technology differences are a barrier.

Implications of character generation will change things.

How much would be left of Traveller in implementing Star Trek? The chargen doesn't seem very Star Trek, the combat system doesn't seem very Star Trek, everything about star ships and travel doesn't seem very Star Trek.

I know you have switched between GURPS and D&D and Hero at least for your Wilderlands. How did you handle the areas where these systems are very different to maintain the same setting?

 

[Necrozius]

View attachment 35433

Neverland is great (and super affordable). A very nice toolbox with very nice art and layout (pretty but functional).

How is Into the Dungeon?

 

[3rik]

We were very into WoD in the early 90s, but we didn't have internet and were unaware of any alternatives. We had lots of fun with it, but in hindsight that was mainly because we handwaved the shit out of it and didn't buy much into the pretensious tone of the books. Eventually it always turned out the game wasn't what we were trying to get out of it and we got tired of it. Me and a friend have recently sold off all our WoD stuff and don't regret it.

Nowadays, for a fun vampire/supernatural monster game I would suggest Eden Studios' Buffy, Angel and/or Ghosts of Albion, which all use Cinematic Unisystem. Mix and match with the other (Cinematic) Unisystem games to taste.

 

[Gabriel]

Nowadays, for a fun vampire/supernatural monster game I would suggest Eden Studios' Buffy,

I picked Buffy out of the bargain bin during the d20 collapse. I had never seen the TV show, only the movie (which doesn't really have any relation).

Even without any existing fandom of the show, the Buffy RPG is a great skim and even pretty good on a solid read. The RPG made the series sound somewhat interesting, so I tried to give it a watch.

Let's just say that I did not enjoy what I saw of the show at all, but I do like the RPG book. It's just that I've never actually given the RPG a real gaming whirl. It has come very close to getting run/played a few times, but it never quite makes that hurdle.

 

[xanther]

Probably most that are "critically acclaimed" Perhaps it is such acclaim has more to do with hype, the new shiny, the ole' shiny, and/or fawning than any reality about the game.

 

[robertsconley]

How can it not unless the two systems are very close in all the things they handle.

Because when it come to various genres, systems are more alike than different. Systems that take way too much work to use are one tightly welded to a very specific setting or narrow subgenre like Exalted. But for the most part there is a center because of the fact most system deal what human beings can and can't do.

Combat lethality can change the setting. Many systems have very different combat lethality from D&D. That changes how scary the horde of orcs is. It can make "megadungeons" very different.

Yet those system often have a sense of experience. Take D&D for example, elements of it work by being X times better at a certain level or hit dice. Hit points for example. The overall effect is that Able on average can take on so many Baker. In GURPS, Hero System, Basic Roleplaying, Savage World, Fate, and other systems have the same relationship between Able and Baker. That at a certain point Able is on average able to take on X Bakers.

Yes a system like GURPS has the possibility of the one shot kill. And if you ran 10,000 trials of Able versus Bakers in a variety of situations, you will see one-shot kills where in D&D you won't beyond lower levels and low hit dice characters. But trick of making it work when dragging a setting across different system isn't the extremes but the averages.

Once you understand that relationship in the new system, then you calibrate accordingly. What this will mean jettisoning some of the expectations of the target system. Not rules mind you but the idea that character only encounter certain levels of power in their progression. Instead you will be substituting how your setting works. For example an experienced leader of a village is a mid-level character of some type in a campaign using D&D rules. But in some editions character levels are considered heroic and everybody else are essentially 1 HD characters. But I found even in these edition D&D doesn't break if the referee chooses to use level as a indicator of life experience.

Differences in magic can be major. Ultimately I decided Cold Iron was not a good fit for Harn. Only by radically changing the assumptions of the magic system could it be made to fit.

Sure Harn has a distinct form of magic in Pvarism. Adventures in Middle Earth rewrote all the character classes, and jacked up the toughness of their creatures relative to CR to capture the feel of Middle Earth. It boils down to how much works it takes to go from X to Y. In general the RPGs that target broadly take less work to adapt than the ones that don't.

As for the specific issue of magic systems. In general if it based on the idea that magic users are trained and that magic is a scholarly art. I can make it work.

Technology differences are a barrier.

Implications of character generation will change things.

How much would be left of Traveller in implementing Star Trek? The chargen doesn't seem very Star Trek, the combat system doesn't seem very Star Trek, everything about star ships and travel doesn't seem very Star Trek.

Then you will need to come with out a different character generation system. It not like Traveller even Classic Traveller was a stranger to custom character generation.

As for classic Traveller Combat, I don't see any particular issue along as the weapon or tech matches Star Trek. A phaser on disintegrate is basically a hit and the target dies deal. Which pretty much happens when when a target suffers damage from a FGMP. Even wearing Battle Dress doesn't help in Classic Traveller as all it does it make you harder to hit.

I know you have switched between GURPS and D&D and Hero at least for your Wilderlands. How did you handle the areas where these systems are very different to maintain the same setting?

Because I focused on how characters behave.

A setting isn't a setting because whether you memorize spells or expend mana to power spells. It a setting because its character both players and NPCs behave in a way that believable (and fun) given its premise. Dungeon adventures in GURPS were a lot more about ambush and scouting than there were in AD&D but players still went on them for the same reasons why they went on them for AD&D. Wealth, fame, or my campaign to further some goal they had.

Because most RPGs focus on human beings and what they can do that provide a common ground for the conversion. What left is the amount of work to be done. Using Traveller takes more work for my Majestic Wilderlands than the times I used Fantasy AGE. But using Fantasy Age to run my Majestic Stars setting took a lot more work than using Traveller. Something I had experience with as I did this before Modern AGE or the Expanse RPG was released.


Concerning Rule Zero
A lot of these debates rest on the fact you have a system in a rulebook that express a certain view of a setting or genre. That while there may be options there will be expressing a certain creative viewpoint. What being ignored in this is that there is an additional step of the what the group does with the rulebooks during a campaign. And the fact is vast majority of the hobby kitbashes. Hardly nobody out there ever runs a campaign 100% rules as written for a published ruleset.

A personal system perhaps as one can be meticulous in making sure ruling are written down and made consistent with a larger system. But group relying on published material always throw in other stuff they find fun. In most case, most of what they do come out of what published as that less work, still fun, and they have a life outside of their hobby of roleplaying.

Rule Zero is being used all the time and is the norm and not the exception. In it's place I recommend substituting Rob's rule of "

If the work is fun then go ahead and don't worry about what the publisher intended. But if you don't have the time, then don't sweat it and just add or change what you have time for ."

 

[VisionStorm]

Concerning Rule Zero
A lot of these debates rest on the fact you have a system in a rulebook that express a certain view of a setting or genre. That while there may be options there will be expressing a certain creative viewpoint. What being ignored in this is that there is an additional step of the what the group does with the rulebooks during a campaign. And the fact is vast majority of the hobby kitbashes. Hardly nobody out there ever runs a campaign 100% rules as written for a published ruleset.

Perhaps, but the reality still remains that, as you point out earlier in this same post, some systems lend themselves more for certain settings/campaign styles out of the box than others. And if you have to tweak and potentially modify the hell out of a system to make it work for a particular setting that pretty much makes the case that system does in fact have an impact on the portrayal of a setting. Or you wouldn't have to put in all the work, which depending on the system and what you're actually trying to represent could constitute a whole system rewrite equivalent to a complete new game, even if it's technically derived from an existing core engine.

So the truth is not in either extreme position, but somewhere in the middle: 1) System does have an impact on the setting. 2) You can technically kinda sorta make it work (modify the damage system/HP gain, make up a new magic system, etc.).

 

[Dropbear]

White Wolf games have always fascinated me with their subject matter, but I can’t get past the writers’ styles.

Nobilis straight up turned me off within five pages, as have every other game written by this author.

I just bought Deviant, because I though the dark supers sound of it was kinda cool. So I broke my code.

I started a thread, I am interested in hearing others’ thoughts about the game.

And boy the system sure seems to have changed a lot since Changeling: The Dreaming which was the last game I bought of theirs.

 

[zanshin]

There's a reasonable amount on vampires (Vivamort runelords/priests) in Cults of Terror.


This was long, long before V5 existed.

Also Telmori were a thing in the Dorastor supplement. I definitely think lycanthropes would be Runequest Glorantha playable. I could see Vivamorti in a one shot, a bit like playing Thanatari in the brilliant 'In darklights shadow' , but I wouldn't have the stomach for a long campaign.

I think Cults of Terror RAW spelled out these were for NPCs not PCs.