RPGs: hall of shame

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Perhaps we need to start differentiating between mortal and venial sins? I suggest the R.E. Howard test. I’m guessing that most people would gladly play Solomon Kane (Savage Worlds) but would run a mile from Conan the FOREX Trader.
 
There were the original and revised versions before Explorer's. Keep in mind, Savage Worlds editions are mostly just minor revisions that remain backward compatible. Adventurer's Edition has been the biggest shake-up so far.
Was this a cunning play on words? Weren't the 'Shaken' rules revised in a major way in the Adventurers edition?
 
At some point they were, but I thought it was before then. Or maybe it was an optional rule that was made standard?

SWAGE seems to have changed to rules for suppressive fire, making it more likely to damage those caught in it, but otherwise more annoying to PCs and less bothersome to cannon fodder (I think). Also it seems to have done away with double-taps.

Weapon stats have been adjusted here and there and are slightly less silly, if only because SWAGE doesn't have a couple of the guns that had daft stats.
 
Was this a cunning play on words? Weren't the 'Shaken' rules revised in a major way in the Adventurers edition?
I think they were the controversial change in Deluxe. Given that that all the editions are braodly-compatible in the way that TSR editions of D&D are, I've always viewed the various changes as optional rules that I can mix and match.

This is true. Absolutely true. And you see it in oh-so-many hobbies: people with a horribly narrow perspective on what's "out there" trumpet something that's ... not particularly innovative as the greatest thing since sliced bread because they're literally ignorant of the width and depth of the hobby they're in.
I guess so. I'd been playing RPGs for 20 years when it came out, with eight of those being spent working in a game store, but it still wasn't enough to have your superior understanding of the hobby.
 
I guess so. I'd been playing RPGs for 20 years when it came out, with eight of those being spent working in a game store, but it still wasn't enough to have your superior understanding of the hobby.

If we go by Deadlands: the Great Rail Wars as when it came out, then I too have 20 years of play before it came out. (I started in 1977.) So it looks like we have similar, but likely highly divergent (given the huge range of games out there!) experience.
 
At some point they were, but I thought it was before then. Or maybe it was an optional rule that was made standard?

They were revised in the period between Deluxe and Adventure Edition as errata/online correction, but SWADE was the first point they saw print in a core rulebook.
 
At least you didn't die during character creation. There's a piece of shit game whose name escapes me at the moment, some grimderp post apocalyptic thing, where it's possible to roll such bad stats for your character that he instantly dies.

edit: it's Dead Earth
Don't forget, in deadEarth you only get three characters ever!
 
Yeah, even in my "dump all my vitriol possible on it" review I said there were some good ideas in it.

But I will never forgive a game that forced me to do 7 aggregate hours of character generation just to have three rolled actions before both characters died.

I suspect that amount of time was atypical, but there was a lot more random die rolling and interaction than seemed at all warranted. But then, I'm no big fan of any form of random character generation, so it was already leaning away from me in that direction before the massive power swings kicked in.

Its kind of a heartbreaker though; there were things I really liked about it.
 
At least you didn't die during character creation. There's a piece of shit game whose name escapes me at the moment, some grimderp post apocalyptic thing, where it's possible to roll such bad stats for your character that he instantly dies.

edit: it's Dead Earth

Goes back to the fine old tradition of that happening in some versions of Traveler. Though deadEarth was a special little snowflake in this regard.
 
Although I'm pretty fond of SW & it's the main game that I run, I am pretty unclear on the answer to this question.

Also, one time on another forum, a poster said something to the effect of "How do I get my group to like Savage Worlds? we hate the the exploding die & wild die & playing card-based initiative & long list of combat modifiers."

I refrained from answering, because I'd had a previous interaction w said poster where I gave what I thought was a helpful answer to their question & they thought I was being snarky, but my answer would have been "So, I agree about the long list of combat modifiers... but if your group hates everything that makes Savage Worlds be Savage Worlds... you're probably better off playing something else."

Yeah, at a certain point if you hate all the core mechanics, you're just not gonna like the game. That's true of any number of games.
 
That would be very much sage advise.

I personally don't hate the exploding die nor the wild die. (I may have some quibbles over how often they have impact, but meh. That's a minor issue.) I do number myself among the people who really don't enjoy the playing card initiative, but again it's a minor issue. (Every game without exception has something I don't like!)

What made SW so disappointing to me was a combination of they intense hype surrounding the game (like I said, "the second coming of R. Peez!") with the ... really ... nothing-special system. There was literally nothing (including the card-based initiative system) that I hadn't seen before in some form or another in previous games, and then on top of that the frustrating organization just turned me off entirely.

Without the hype I probably wouldn't have had quite as negative a response. Ditto for having better organization. It was the combination that caused the visceral reaction.

Unfortunately, besides overselling, there's always a tendency for people who really like a generic or semi-generic system to suggest it for things that it doesn't necessarily look like the ideal choice for, and especially doesn't when you look at someone's criteria on. Back in the days when I'd see this a lot about Fate, the phrase I saw to describe it was "Apparently its both a desert topping and a floor wax."
 
Death during character creation is something that I consider an unforgivable design sin. It passes in original Traveler, because no one back then knew any better, but no game since has any excuse for it.

The only way it makes sense is if character creation is the game, and the actual playing the character is just an unnecessary, optional step which should be bypassed in favor of engaging with character creation again. Death during character creation is a statement that eliminating a suitable player by killing their character before they're allowed to join the game is an acceptable and desired outcome.

Perhaps it made sense in the convention and game club setting where mass numbers of transient players are the norm, but it doesn't make any sense in the context of how the other 99.999% of the world plays. In a typical game, having the new guy roll multiple characters before he gets one that survives (and likely doesn't even like to begin with due to random generation) is an absolute waste of time.
 
Was this a cunning play on words? Weren't the 'Shaken' rules revised in a major way in the Adventurers edition?

They were done late in Deluxe. What the new edition did was rework other parts that no longer worked right with the changes (there were spells that with the change were kind of a joke; most of those used other mechanics in the most recent one).
 
At some point they were, but I thought it was before then. Or maybe it was an optional rule that was made standard?

SWAGE seems to have changed to rules for suppressive fire, making it more likely to damage those caught in it, but otherwise more annoying to PCs and less bothersome to cannon fodder (I think). Also it seems to have done away with double-taps.

Those are still there, as I recall, but you have to have an Edge to benefit from them.
 
Death during character creation is something that I consider an unforgivable design sin. It passes in original Traveler, because no one back then knew any better, but no game since has any excuse for it.

It also served some purpose there that it often hasn't in more current games (specifically, to discourage going to the well for more terms too often. I still think it was an annoying feature, but then, traditional Traveler character gen is way more random than I have any real toleration for anymore anyway).
 
Those are still there, as I recall, but you have to have an Edge to benefit from them.
That makes sense, because otherwise you'd be silly to use burst fire when double-taps have the same mechanical effect and use less ammo (and don't need a gun that has the burst option).
 
It also served some purpose there that it often hasn't in more current games (specifically, to discourage going to the well for more terms too often. I still think it was an annoying feature, but then, traditional Traveler character gen is way more random than I have any real toleration for anymore anyway).
And it was also officially made optional in 1981. Actually earlier in some other supplement I think.

But yes, death in chargen in Traveller is partly an incentive to not shoot for too many terms. It ALSO officially became a way to dispose of a set of attribute rolls you didn't like (with references to joining the Scouts).

I have my own workaround built into the online character generator:


If you "hunt" for something, you will get a living PC (BUG - minterms should also guarantee a living PC, then &minterms=1 would give you a totally random, but surviving character).

But even without that, just hit refresh if you get a dead PC. It won't take but a few moments to generate a random PC.

And a solution I offer to the "too random" is to generate a few PCs and pick the one you are happiest with. If really none of them float your boat, roll up a few more. When using the online generator, work with the GM (me?) to define something that's OK to "hunt" for (you can hunt for a specific skill for example).

With all of that, if you can't come up with a character you would enjoy playing with 10 minutes of investment (less time than most games with designed characters take), I'm not sure what to say (maybe give it 30 minutes, still less time than a more involved character design system).
 
That makes sense, because otherwise you'd be silly to use burst fire when double-taps have the same mechanical effect and use less ammo (and don't need a gun that has the burst option).

Yeah, its not a change I'm overall particularly fond of, but it at least shows they thought it through.
 
And it was also officially made optional in 1981. Actually earlier in some other supplement I think.

Yeah, you just were booted out after an injury as I recall.

But yes, death in chargen in Traveller is partly an incentive to not shoot for too many terms. It ALSO officially became a way to dispose of a set of attribute rolls you didn't like (with references to joining the Scouts).

Well, swordbushing was a thing for that with crap attribute rolls well before then.

With all of that, if you can't come up with a character you would enjoy playing with 10 minutes of investment (less time than most games with designed characters take), I'm not sure what to say (maybe give it 30 minutes, still less time than a more involved character design system).

I just don't see it as necessary in the first place. You have to see some virtue to random character gen out the gate to want to go through those. There are more current versions that avoid the whole (or most of) song and dance, and that's fine with me.
 
Yeah, you just were booted out after an injury as I recall.

Well, swordbushing was a thing for that with crap attribute rolls well before then.

I just don't see it as necessary in the first place. You have to see some virtue to random character gen out the gate to want to go through those. There are more current versions that avoid the whole (or most of) song and dance, and that's fine with me.
I have come to really like random chargen. Of all the games I'm actively playing, Bushido is the only one with designed characters (and even there you roll social standing and a couple other things). My Gloranthan RuneQuest campaign uses 1dt edition previous experience which even gives you random skills and magic. But I'm always happy to work with a player who isn't happy with what the random generation gives them, but these days, I find plenty of folks who are interested in the old school games are also happy to have some (or a lot of) randomness in their character generation.
 
I have come to really like random chargen. Of all the games I'm actively playing, Bushido is the only one with designed characters (and even there you roll social standing and a couple other things). My Gloranthan RuneQuest campaign uses 1dt edition previous experience which even gives you random skills and magic. But I'm always happy to work with a player who isn't happy with what the random generation gives them, but these days, I find plenty of folks who are interested in the old school games are also happy to have some (or a lot of) randomness in their character generation.

I'm not denying there are people who like it. I'm not one of them (at least as a mandatory element), and no one I play with is either, so from where I sit any sort of mandatory random element in character gen is, at best, a necessary evil.
 
I have come to really like random chargen...
I agree, though for me it's more that I always liked it. I've never enjoyed games where character generation is a matter of coming up with the most advantageous 'build,' or the most cost-effective expenditure of points, or the optimal set of advantages and flaws. I don't mind games that reward knowledge of the rules or system (though in general they aren't my favorites) but I'd prefer that to be after the character has been created, not before and during.
 
I agree, though for me it's more that I always liked it. I've never enjoyed games where character generation is a matter of coming up with the most advantageous 'build,' or the most cost-effective expenditure of points, or the optimal set of advantages and flaws. I don't mind games that reward knowledge of the rules or system (though in general they aren't my favorites) but I'd prefer that to be after the character has been created, not before and during.

This assumes that's the only reason for a build system as compared to, say, it being about ending up with the character you want to play rather than what the dice say you should play. This may involve optimization but that's entirely an issue of individual player expectation, not anything a build system forces on you.
 
The problem with build systems is that all too often there's really one optimal build and everything else is subpar. One thing I really liked about Rolemaster Standard System is that you buy your stats and then roll for your potential and suddenly your fighter isn't an idiot or has great interpersonal skills but it didn't make them a worse fighter to do so.

For The Arcane Confabulation I went with three stats per skill so there's more than one way to be good at things.
 
The thing about optimisation, is that once certain design assumptions are ingrained it just becomes the most efficient way to build the character I want especially as point buy character creation involves compromise anyway (you almost never have enough points to build exactly the character you envisage.)

Say I'm playing one of the White Wolf games. I want to be good at combat and have a bunch of other skills. It's only good sense when compromising to max out my combat at the start of the game and look to pick up any additional skills I miss out on as a result once the game begins. The player who wants to make basically the same character but has less system mastery will make different choices and be less effective. (This is because build points in Chargen and Xp don't work the same way - basically if you think you want your character to be really good at something you need to pick this up at the beginning - the things you want to be merely ok at you are better off buying as you go).
 
I hate rolling for stats. If one player rolls well and another poorly (this always happens) you end up with an unbalanced party consisting of Sir Guillaume the Golden.... and Blop the potato peasant. No fun for the guy playing Blop, and the Guillaume character would only be fun for a certain kind of player. Plus the GM then has to do extra work balancing scenarios and encounters for a wider range of characters' capabilities.
 
The thing about optimisation, is that once certain design assumptions are ingrained it just becomes the most efficient way to build the character I want especially as point buy character creation involves compromise anyway (you almost never have enough points to build exactly the character you envisage.)

Say I'm playing one of the White Wolf games. I want to be good at combat and have a bunch of other skills. It's only good sense when compromising to max out my combat at the start of the game and look to pick up any additional skills I miss out on as a result once the game begins.

Well, the extremely dim "Linear build, progressive advancement" there doesn't help; the dumbest thing to do in that kind of system is try for any sort of generalist approach at start. Its a problem with every game that does that sort of thing, just because everyone is unwilling to make advancement slow enough that linear/linear doesn't work, but also can't be bothered/ is afraid to put in a couple tables so progressive/progressive can't be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJS
There will never be balance between all the characters. Even if every character is mechanically exactly the same, the way one player plays their character will be more effective within the game than another.

Build systems attempt to balance out different character types, and usually work OK IF the game and the players are amendable to different character types having different roles.

The same thing is true of random generation.

And both methods can produce dud characters. A build system with much in the way of choice is going to have choices that are less optimal (even if it is simply less optimal for the campaign being run). Random generation of course can generate hopeless characters.

Ultimately the fix is to allow players to create a new character, or tweak the character they have. Tweaking can be done with random generation just as easily as with a character build. Also, the GM can tune the campaign to the characters that were created.

Some players like to play the challenge presented and those players do best with a more random system, otherwise in a build system they might be best off with playing a pregen or other character created by someone else.

Other players prefer to engage with a character they have designed.

And many are in between. The way I do Traveller chargen these days offers choices. You can roll up manually and make all the choices available (mostly which table to roll on). You can roll up multiple characters and choose. You can use the online generator and specify something you want (after consulting with me). I'm always willing to tweak a character. With RQ, you get to choose origin which gives some direction to character type. You can choose cult. You can choose previous experience path. Sometimes some choices are offered. With Cold Iron, I've been allowing swapping two attributes (and that after rolling again if a particularly bad set of rolls was made) and I think even once allowed a 3-way swap. You then get to choose class levels (fighter, magic user, cleric, expertise) and choose skills (and spells if a caster).
 
I agree with that. One thing I've tried in the past, with moderate success, is to let players do some of their point buy during the first few sessions.

Players allocate, say, 2/3 of their points right away. Then when they run into an obstacle or monster, let them say, "I'm going to use some of my remaining points to buy this skill that will be useful now, treating it as though I had bought it properly during chargen."

This allows characters to grow organically with skills and traits that actually fit the adventure and the style the character is being played. Not only that, you end up with a party where people have nonoverlapping skills and no gaps.

Later on I'd award character points almost like in Ars Magica, where you either dedicate your down time to studying/practising something, or put those points into something you did during the last adventure. I don't really want people buying skills or attributes out of the blue, with no justification as to how Ugg the Caveman has suddenly increased his IQ after several adventures' worth of headbutting people, saying "ugg", and hoarding his character points. But if he attempts at least a few IQ related tasks I'd allow it.
 
There will never be balance between all the characters. Even if every character is mechanically exactly the same, the way one player plays their character will be more effective within the game than another.

At least with a build system, that's an issue of how the player plays, not what a set of dice rolls has forced on them.

Build systems attempt to balance out different character types, and usually work OK IF the game and the players are amendable to different character types having different roles.

The same thing is true of random generation.

And both methods can produce dud characters. A build system with much in the way of choice is going to have choices that are less optimal (even if it is simply less optimal for the campaign being run). Random generation of course can generate hopeless characters.

Ultimately the fix is to allow players to create a new character, or tweak the character they have. Tweaking can be done with random generation just as easily as with a character build. Also, the GM can tune the campaign to the characters that were created.

Some players like to play the challenge presented and those players do best with a more random system, otherwise in a build system they might be best off with playing a pregen or other character created by someone else.

Note I've been very specific criticizing mandatory random generation. its entirely possible to introduce random generation into an otherwise build system as long as you don't insist on it being able to gust above what the range of potentials with the build system do.
 
I agree with that. One thing I've tried in the past, with moderate success, is to let players do some of their point buy during the first few sessions.

I actually had one campaign which was entirely build-as-you go. I don't even think the attributes were set at the start of play.
 
Death in character creation in Classic Traveller is wonderful and an important balancing function. Not only does it discourage going for too many terms, it also encourages going for as many terms as possible if you rolled low attributes. Either you'll get better or you'll die and roll over. It makes character creation a fun solitaire activity. But Classic Traveller in particular needs to be played with a wargamer's mindset.

With my Galaxies In Shadow rules, the default is random attributes (exceptional individuals roll d100 and subtract rolls under 35 from 70) but you can do points buy if your character is the result of a eugenics program. On the lower end of the scale there's your viable but consistent model with n +1d10 in their stats and 500 points to spend or there's the really rigid tank grown 555 points but that's generally preselected models.

There's nothing innovative about allowing random and point buy but I thought it was fun to have it represent something in game.
 
Well, the extremely dim "Linear build, progressive advancement" there doesn't help; the dumbest thing to do in that kind of system is try for any sort of generalist approach at start. Its a problem with every game that does that sort of thing, just because everyone is unwilling to make advancement slow enough that linear/linear doesn't work, but also can't be bothered/ is afraid to put in a couple tables so progressive/progressive can't be done.
Yeah, I don't think that Vampire et al are fair examples of point build systems because of how badly they implement it. (Linear/progressive combo is the main one, but there's also big issues like not making it clear up front to new players how vital having the right abilities is to discipline use or the fact that the generation merit is far better than any other for the same cost).

That said, I like both random and point build depending on my mood and prefer games to commit to one or another rather than mixing and matching. If I'm designing a character I want full control over everything from stats to background. If I'm random rolling I'll have a good solid lifepath system please.
 
I agree with that. One thing I've tried in the past, with moderate success, is to let players do some of their point buy during the first few sessions.
I've also used the method of letting people juggle some of their points after the first session. If they get rid of a skill, it's probably because they never used it anyway, so it rarely involves retconning anything from the first session.
 
I've played around with a lot of systems.

One I'm noodling around with is that you roll 3d10 + 35 for your stats but your profession adds to them, so your fighter's gonna have an acceptable strength and so on. The skill system is that you get half a dozen skills with ratings equal to their base stat. It's a bit WHFRP but hands out a competent character from the outset.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top