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

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
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.
On the topic of Runequest and vampires, RQ6/Mythras has the Vyako cult in the Taskan Empire book for the Thennla setting, which is a road to vampirism.
 
On the topic of Runequest and vampires, RQ6/Mythras has the Vyako cult in the Taskan Empire book for the Thennla setting, which is a road to vampirism.
Interesting. There are definitely ways to go with Vampires that make them playable (the Angel from Buffy model for example). If you can take blood from non sentient creatures, it's no different to being a carnivore, just the management of the 'craving' as an added aspect.

Vivamorti though, irredeemably evil.
 
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.
I don't own that one, but I do own Angel and Ghosts of Albion (and Army of Darkness). I would not use them to play an actual Angel or Ghosts of Albion game, but the rules allow you to run pretty much any urban fantasy setting you can come up with. I'm sure the same goes for Buffy, though Angel had the demon-creation rules.
 
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.).
Yea, this is what I'm trying to get at. If you are making changes to the system to fit a setting better, then either the system changes the setting or the setting changes the system. I feel that almost any other system is going to have something about it that is different as to constitute change of the setting. I get the point about average impact over time of a combat system might turn out the same. On the other hand, if you change the encounter tables to match the new system's combat system, then you have changed the setting. Or if you use a setting in AD&D where the average townsman is NOT zero level, then you ARE changing the system. It may be a trivial change, but it is a change. Now granted, I'm not sure how many people ever had all townsmen be level 0...

Now to some extent, the more your play centers around human interaction, the less impact the system has UNLESS it has rules that cover human interaction in a way that would impact the setting.
 
Interesting. There are definitely ways to go with Vampires that make them playable (the Angel from Buffy model for example). If you can take blood from non sentient creatures, it's no different to being a carnivore, just the management of the 'craving' as an added aspect.

Vivamorti though, irredeemably evil.
The key for me in regards to "do we need the World of Darkness games" is not whether vampires are evil or not, or any specific game's presentation of vampires, but instead that there are a number of games that predate Vampire that one could use to play vampire PCs, possibly with a similar setting or more likely with a very different setting. Heck, remember that the Blackmoor campaign had a PC vampire...
 
The key for me in regards to "do we need the World of Darkness games" is not whether vampires are evil or not, or any specific game's presentation of vampires, but instead that there are a number of games that predate Vampire that one could use to play vampire PCs, possibly with a similar setting or more likely with a very different setting. Heck, remember that the Blackmoor campaign had a PC vampire...
All this assumes, in the whole wider discussion, is that Vampire: The Masquerade and the other WoD games are just generic games designed to insert the playing of vampire characters, or other respective monsters, into whatever setting or background. They aren’t.
 
I'm not a fan of WoD, but boiling it down to "you could already play Vampires in other systems if you wanted" does seem to be zooming out so far as to be a pointless argument.

Like, you could technically run anything in OD&D if you really wanted to. Does that mean there was no purpose for any other systems? I've never understood the "we didn't need x" argument anyway. At least not on a level beyond personal taste.
 
All this assumes, in the whole wider discussion, is that Vampire: The Masquerade and the other WoD games are just generic games designed to insert the playing of vampire characters, or other respective monsters, into whatever setting or background. They aren’t.
Agreed. And if you buy into the WoD setting then there's something in the game that isn't in the alternatives. But I get someone picking up the game and thinking that it doesn't provide anything "new" to them for playing vampires, or at least nothing new that they wanted. But you originally responded to this:

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.
With this:
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.
So yes, Vampire provides stuff that RQ or C&S don't provide, but to say that someone couldn't run a vampire or werething game using one of those games and feel like they got everything THEY saw in Vampire is certainly a stretch. As I mentioned, I watched some friends playing some kind of vampire/undead game, in a modern setting no less, with AD&D, and what I observed was a quite functional game that looked fun. Was it the same as Vampire? No. Was it inspired by Vampire? Maybe.

What we have is the common case where someone sees a setting specific game Y and says "oh, I could do that better with X." They may or may not be thinking of doing everything that Y does with X, and when we really like Y or really dislike X we can easily get our feathers ruffled. But it is a truth that (almost) any setting COULD be done with (almost) any game. But depending on how much the setting and game diverge, there may either be lots of rule changes to the game, or setting changes, or both. And what that looks like depends on what the person doing the conversion cares about the setting and the game.

I personally will never do Glorantha with anything other than RuneQuest 1st edition. I don't see any point, and another game system would lose all I love about the combination. Now I AM experimenting with using RQ1 outside of Glorantha. But I'm porting some of what I love into the Thieves Guild setting that I'm using. On the other hand, I've happily run Blackmoor with Cold Iron and Burning Wheel, though there's definitely little comparison between Dave Arneson's vision of Blackmoor and either of those campaigns, and even those two campaigns had very different visions of Blackmoor. I also ran Harn using Cold Iron but eventually decided that Cold Iron was NOT a good fit for the setting, particularly as more and more was released for the setting.
I'm not a fan of WoD, but boiling it down to "you could already play Vampires in other systems if you wanted" does seem to be zooming out so far as to be a pointless argument.

Like, you could technically run anything in OD&D if you really wanted to. Does that mean there was no purpose for any other systems? I've never understood the "we didn't need x" argument anyway. At least not on a level beyond personal taste.
Yea, on the one hand the argument is pointless, but I was reacting to the sentiment Sharrow expressed which I think IS legitimate. His crew looked at the game and saw nothing that grabbed their attention, feeling like they could run vampires using a system they were already using. I think that's a legitimate sentiment. And I think ANYONE publishing a new RPG really should be secure in their idea of WHY their new game, and be able to articulate it, at least if they want a chance of attracting a big following. Now it COULD be as simple as "we want a game dedicated to playing vampires." Cool. But expect to be challenged, but you'll also sell well to those looking for a game about vampires. And you could probably even produce a new vampire themed game today with as thin a justification as that and get plenty of interest. And unless you really did just copy Vampire, your game probably has merit even though there's an existing title (or two or three) in the genre.
 
Last edited:
Neverland is great (and super affordable). A very nice toolbox with very nice art and layout (pretty but functional).

How is Into the Dungeon?

Yeah Neverland is impressive.

Just dipped into Into the Dungeon so far, it is a CYOA, the adventure/dungeon seems pretty traditional. Appropriately aimed at kids I think.

The art in Dungeons and Drawings is awesome, quirky and colourful. I bought it for my wife because she fell in love with it right away when she discovered in at the bookstore.

green hag.png
logokron devil.png
mimic11.png
 
Last edited:
If anything, with age I've gravitated towards games that represent the settings better...because I now understand better how settings would work. Now, I don't need that to be necessarily mechanically relevant - because a lot of it happens off the scale of personal mechanics - but I want it accounted for.
So no, I don't think I've grown softer.

What has grown thinner is my tolerence for crunch that's not needed, as in, if you could do things differently and achieve the same results...

OTOH, when I was younger, I was playing GURPS and not allowing superpowers. These days, I'm fine with playing Exalted and Icons.
They're just going to be, ahem, slightly different in tone from when I run Traveller...though the setting is going to work as logically as possible in Exalted as well:tongue:!
 
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.
Funny, I was just going to say "like D&D", instead:tongue:. I can use any of the three editions of Exalted to represent multiple settings that don't have powers, or only limited powers, with extremely limited effort. (In fact, I'd just have to cut out the Charm system, which would probably improve the game!)

D&D would be way too much work, though.

Sorry, robertsconley robertsconley - I think that you know it, but let me reiterate: I respect the efforts you've put into translating the mechanics of your setting to a more popular system. But I remain pretty sure the experience of playing it has changed with the change in systems, much as you're trying to make sure it has not. (And then it might have only changed minimally on your table...but on most tables using the OSR version, the game experience would probably be way closer to most other OSR games).

The setting might be still the same, mind you, as in the Horse Clans would still be the way they were. But on the personal level?
Let's just say that knowing that your fighter can take reliably on 3 bakers and barring a series of critical hits from them, would remain unhurt and just need more or less extensive recovery...makes this a rather different game from one where an angry baker with a big knife can off you on a critical hit and recovery would be long and painful.

Why? Because while the averages matter to you on the setting level, what matters to me at the table is what has happened in our campaign. Which, with more time playing, becomes pretty likely to include some extremes. And in playing, I must account for those extremes as well - which means preparation, and taking options I wouldn't need to account for when playing in a different system.

Again, not a criticism on you. I just lament the fact that the less appropriate and less fun system was also more commercially viable for you, OK:shade:?

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.
...so how is "turning the tables on Games Workshop" different from "turning the tables on WotC"? I don't really think how the two companies treat their customers and employees is morally different:shade:.

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.

Me and the wife regularly discusss TV series in terms of RPG mechanics...just sayin', is all:grin:!
 
...so how is "turning the tables on Games Workshop" different from "turning the tables on WotC"? I don't really think how the two companies treat their customers and employees is morally different:shade:.
I haven't heard at least of WOTC sitting on somebody's work for over 30 years with no apparent interest in releasing it themselves and then hitting the creator with a cease and desist when they try and use it to make a new game.
 
Funny, I was just going to say "like D&D", instead:tongue:. I can use any of the three editions of Exalted to represent multiple settings that don't have powers, or only limited powers, with extremely limited effort. (In fact, I'd just have to cut out the Charm system, which would probably improve the game!)

D&D would be way too much work, though.

Sorry, robertsconley robertsconley - I think that you know it, but let me reiterate: I respect the efforts you've put into translating the mechanics of your setting to a more popular system. But I remain pretty sure the experience of playing it has changed with the change in systems, much as you're trying to make sure it has not. (And then it might have only changed minimally on your table...but on most tables using the OSR version, the game experience would probably be way closer to most other OSR games).
A Lamborghini car is wasted in me. All I want out of my car that it works, can transport a decent amount of stuff for it size, and that it gets me from A to B. But I have friends where a Lamborghini would appreciate and they would enjoy driving that much more even if just going from A to B.

The same way different systems have different feels despite the fact the ones that focus on roleplaying human beings are pretty capable of handling similar situation. I enjoy GURPS more than classic D&D. But since my focus is on running campaigns where players trash the setting than playing a specific system, classic D&D and other RPGs are good enough for the job. The players pretty much get the same experience.


The setting might be still the same, mind you, as in the Horse Clans would still be the way they were. But on the personal level?
Let's just say that knowing that your fighter can take reliably on 3 bakers and barring a series of critical hits from them, would remain unhurt and just need more or less extensive recovery...makes this a rather different game from one where an angry baker with a big knife can off you on a critical hit and recovery would be long and painful.
If that type of situation is important to yours setting then one has to account for it. And I thought a lot about that situation. My answer was to use OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. The numbers are such that a 10 level fighter is not dramatically better than a 1st level fighter. Then in addition I introduced a exploding critical die. If you roll a natural 20, you roll again. As along as you are rolling nat 20s you get to keep rolling. I seen this done 5 times in a row. Now I multiply the damage dice by the number of times this happens. But I could double it if in the long run that doesn't work out. So combined with the lower curve of OD&D. This amount that a 10th level fighter is still vulnerable to a bunch of bakers. It not likely that the bakers will win in GURPS or my Majestic Fantasy RPG but the possibility is there. And combined with some of the equipment that made it over like the Knight Killer Crossbow and the fact everybody has levels, players have the same amount of respect for the ordinary denizens of my setting.

Again about Rule zero, we are not blind automations beholden to the likes of Gygax, Jackson, Perrin, etc and holding their word as if they came down from Mount Sinai. As my example illustrates, if one has an understanding how the system works and why things are the way they are for the system. It often doesn't take that much work to tweak it so it good enough keep your setting the same.

Note I said often not always.

Why? Because while the averages matter to you on the setting level, what matters to me at the table is what has happened in our campaign. Which, with more time playing, becomes pretty likely to include some extremes. And in playing, I must account for those extremes as well - which means preparation, and taking options I wouldn't need to account for when playing in a different system.

Again, not a criticism on you. I just lament the fact that the less appropriate and less fun system was also more commercially viable for you, OK:shade:?
I would love to do some GURPS stuff. Aside from it a outstanding system to work with, it also has the mechanics to express various naunces. Granted I don't need to have a specific mechanic to allow a wealthy PC at start of the campaign. But it is nice that it is there along with the other options that highlight the possibilities tersely.
 
AsenRG AsenRG In regards to magic systems, I found that as long you don't do something that requires you touch/rewrite every spell. It can be straightforward to tweak a magic system despite the fact that RPG magic system are completely made up stuff. In fact that principle is key for the rest of the system as well. If the change involves changes to any of the lists that a system provides, feats, skills, items, monsters, spells, et. Then the work escalated. All the changes except one I made to D&D magic to make it fit better with the Majestic Wilderlands were about how and when spells were used.

And I didn't have to do the one change that involved me touching every spells but I working on something call the Ten Arts of Magic for a long time. And I figure out how to do it with classic D&D in way I never could or wanted to with GURPS*. So I went ahead and made the addition. Which was spell get a small boost in what they can do if casted by somebody who attuned to one of the ten arts.
 
I haven't heard at least of WOTC sitting on somebody's work for over 30 years with no apparent interest in releasing it themselves and then hitting the creator with a cease and desist when they try and use it to make a new game.

Which thing was that?
 
Which thing was that?
Golden Heroes. There's basically two versions of Squadron UK now, there's one that you only have if you got it off Drivethru before the cease and desist. That's basically GH 2nd edition. And one Simon did that's at a safe distance from the original, which I bought as well.
 
Golden Heroes. There's basically two versions of Squadron UK now, there's one that you only have if you got it off Drivethru before the cease and desist. That's basically GH 2nd edition. And one Simon did that's at a safe distance from the original, which I bought as well.

Ah, OK. I as worried it was the upcoming Tetsubo release by Dave Morris using the Outlaws system
 
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.).

Mmm, I'm with Robert here. GURPS vs D&D for a dungeon crawl, say, doesn't make the concept of dungeon fantasy vastly different. It doesn't even automatically enforce different tactics: low-point GURPS characters are a lot more survivable than 1st level D&D characters, for instance.

But beyond that, hell, no, I wouldn't need to rewrite or massively houserule the system. Players just need to moderate their tactics. Less by way of perpetual frontal assaults, more by way of ambush, range, feigned retreats, gimmicks. (As against that, GURPS spellcasters don't require meat shields by definition.) More frequent rest breaks, take longer over the whole thing.

Now would I have to do some serious revision work to make GURPS work just like D&D does in a dungeon? Probably. But if I wanted a system to work exactly like D&D, why wouldn't I just use D&D?
 
A Lamborghini car is wasted in me. All I want out of my car that it works, can transport a decent amount of stuff for it size, and that it gets me from A to B. But I have friends where a Lamborghini would appreciate and they would enjoy driving that much more even if just going from A to B.

The same way different systems have different feels despite the fact the ones that focus on roleplaying human beings are pretty capable of handling similar situation.
And that was my point exactly.

I enjoy GURPS more than classic D&D.
Of course, you're a man of culture and refined taste:thumbsup::grin:!
But since my focus is on running campaigns where players trash the setting than playing a specific system, classic D&D and other RPGs are good enough for the job. The players pretty much get the same experience.
Well - give what we started with, it's better to say they get pretty much the same experience, within the bounds of the system.
As I said, I respect your efforts to bring the gameplay closer. I just don't think they could be completely successful:shade:.

If that type of situation is important to yours setting then one has to account for it.
To the setting? Not necessarily. To the characters in the game? Yes.

And I thought a lot about that situation. My answer was to use OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. The numbers are such that a 10 level fighter is not dramatically better than a 1st level fighter. Then in addition I introduced a exploding critical die. If you roll a natural 20, you roll again. As along as you are rolling nat 20s you get to keep rolling. I seen this done 5 times in a row. Now I multiply the damage dice by the number of times this happens. But I could double it if in the long run that doesn't work out. So combined with the lower curve of OD&D. This amount that a 10th level fighter is still vulnerable to a bunch of bakers. It not likely that the bakers will win in GURPS or my Majestic Fantasy RPG but the possibility is there. And combined with some of the equipment that made it over like the Knight Killer Crossbow and the fact everybody has levels, players have the same amount of respect for the ordinary denizens of my setting.
Again, I respect those efforts - though I'm not sure whether I'm understanding you right that you double the damage only if the first d20 rolls another 20 - but I've long ago stopped believing you can make a system with a given structure behave as another with a different structure, merely by changing the numerical values...:gunslinger:

Again about Rule zero, we are not blind automations beholden to the likes of Gygax, Jackson, Perrin, etc and holding their word as if they came down from Mount Sinai. As my example illustrates, if one has an understanding how the system works and why things are the way they are for the system. It often doesn't take that much work to tweak it so it good enough keep your setting the same.

Note I said often not always.
It might be that I have no gift for systems...but my efforts to do likewise always ended by "not good enough".
Again, whatever works for you, works for you! I'm just explaining why it probably won't work for me...

I would love to do some GURPS stuff. Aside from it a outstanding system to work with, it also has the mechanics to express various naunces. Granted I don't need to have a specific mechanic to allow a wealthy PC at start of the campaign. But it is nice that it is there along with the other options that highlight the possibilities tersely.
Indeed, it's a great system, IMO.

AsenRG AsenRG In regards to magic systems, I found that as long you don't do something that requires you touch/rewrite every spell. It can be straightforward to tweak a magic system despite the fact that RPG magic system are completely made up stuff. In fact that principle is key for the rest of the system as well. If the change involves changes to any of the lists that a system provides, feats, skills, items, monsters, spells, et. Then the work escalated. All the changes except one I made to D&D magic to make it fit better with the Majestic Wilderlands were about how and when spells were used.

And I didn't have to do the one change that involved me touching every spells but I working on something call the Ten Arts of Magic for a long time. And I figure out how to do it with classic D&D in way I never could or wanted to with GURPS*. So I went ahead and made the addition. Which was spell get a small boost in what they can do if casted by somebody who attuned to one of the ten arts.

Actually, I suspect it's much more easy to tweak magic systems precisely because they deal with made-up stuff nobody can check. I mean, what's the correct pronunciation of Yog-Sothoth?
"Yes, that's exactly how you pronounce it":devil:!
 
Ah, OK. I as worried it was the upcoming Tetsubo release by Dave Morris using the Outlaws system
I *think* at least that because it was never published Tetsubo is still owned by Dave., as long as it doesn't use Warhammer IP. You could always ask him, he's not exactly hard to talk to online. :p
 
I *think* at least that because it was never published Tetsubo is still owned by Dave., as long as it doesn't use Warhammer IP. You could always ask him, he's not exactly hard to talk to online. :p
That's what I remember from his blog as well.
 
Tales from the Loop is critically acclaimed, right...? I found that rather mediocre; it feels like someone tagged some future tech onto the 1980s setting.
I suspected that would be the case... that it was mostly hanging on the artwork as it's selling point.
Kind of like Zero did.
Is Vaesen like that, or does it go above and beyond the art it's built around?
 
I didn't find the writing or mechanics disappointing personally, but YMMV is a thing.
Same here. I thought it (and the sequel Things from the Flood) to be fascinating.

Vaesen has a neat system for building and upgrading a base of operations.

Then again, my understanding of the quality of game mechanics (in an objective sense) is rather poor.
 
Mmm, I'm with Robert here. GURPS vs D&D for a dungeon crawl, say, doesn't make the concept of dungeon fantasy vastly different. It doesn't even automatically enforce different tactics: low-point GURPS characters are a lot more survivable than 1st level D&D characters, for instance.

But beyond that, hell, no, I wouldn't need to rewrite or massively houserule the system. Players just need to moderate their tactics. Less by way of perpetual frontal assaults, more by way of ambush, range, feigned retreats, gimmicks. (As against that, GURPS spellcasters don't require meat shields by definition.) More frequent rest breaks, take longer over the whole thing.

Now would I have to do some serious revision work to make GURPS work just like D&D does in a dungeon? Probably. But if I wanted a system to work exactly like D&D, why wouldn't I just use D&D?

IDK, if players need to moderate their tactics depending on the system being used then that sounds like system does have a deep impact on the way that at least some aspects of reality are modeled within the game world. Which seems to give more weight to what the poster who kicked off this side discussion ( ffilz ffilz I think) was trying to say than to the idea that system has no impact on the portrayal of setting/the game world.

Not saying it can't be done--obviously nothing stops you from playing any setting using any system you want. But if the tactics people inhabiting that same world have to change to fit the system currently being used that sounds like system can be a factor when portraying setting.
 
I didn't find the writing or mechanics disappointing personally, but YMMV is a thing.

Oh no I quite liked it. But I think “the 80s but with weird tech” sums it up pretty well.

The Year Zero Engine is pretty solid, in my opinion. Perhaps not the best or most innovative system, but I’ve found the little tweaks from game to game can be really defining.

I was just surprised to see someone take issue with the premise.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top