Quote from: taustin;665350But that's the specific sentence you said you didn't understand.

And you've now demonstrated why I didn't bother to explain it further.

I had to ignore David.  I'm ignoring basically anyone here that is a Traveller 5 fanboy, in order to avoid having to do sanity rolls.  Traveller 5 is so complicated, that people are all OCD, AAD, and ADHD in love with it.  But the kicker is, there isn't really a game there.  Hopefully, all the T5 books will get bought so they can quickly be burned or buried or whatever and forgoten about.

Star Fleet Battles (back in the day) when the errata was scattered across various Nexus magazines (only some of which we happened to have) taught me just how dangerous errata can be.  The hundreds of pages of rules were bad enough without having multiple sources of changes to these rules scattered about.  

It was fun but complicated.  We did carrier battles that took all weekend.

In terms of RPGs, it depends on whether you include the full range of supplements in specific games.  Pathfinder/3.5 could get very complex with all of the books (70-odd for 3.5) but the core rules were pretty reasonable.  

GURPS had the ability to be made complex but that was always a decision.  My enjoyment faded when too many books and optional rules got included.  

But in terms of long term playing and painful complexity, Rolemaster plus companions had a ton of issues.  It's mechanics were easy but things like putting out actions as a percentage of a round, splitting out parries in a dynamic way, and experience for travel really led to an astonishing amount of book-keeping.  It could still be fun, but the book-keeping did not help with the fun.

Quote from: Votan;665359Star Fleet Battles (back in the day) when the errata was scattered across various Nexus magazines (only some of which we happened to have) taught me just how dangerous errata can be.  The hundreds of pages of rules were bad enough without having multiple sources of changes to these rules scattered about.  

It was an even better example of how dangerous expansions can be. By the time we gave up on it, we needed a hand truck to haul the box around.

Why are people going on and on about boardgames, miniatures games (like Starfleet Battles), and wargames - when the title of the thread clearly says :...most Complicated RPG You ever Played...?

Just Curious.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;665398Why are people going on and on about boardgames, miniatures games (like Starfleet Battles), and wargames - when the title of the thgread clearly says :...most Complicated RPG You ever Played...?

Just Curious.

- Ed C.

Because HackMaster wasn't a good enough answer.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;665402Because HackMaster wasn't a good enough answer.

Which HackMaster, the new one or the "4th Edition" that had crit charts that were more complicated than Rolemaster but not half as funny?

jg

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;665351I had to ignore David.  I'm ignoring basically anyone here that is a Traveller 5 fanboy, in order to avoid having to do sanity rolls.  Traveller 5 is so complicated, that people are all OCD, AAD, and ADHD in love with it.  But the kicker is, there isn't really a game there.  Hopefully, all the T5 books will get bought so they can quickly be burned or buried or whatever and forgoten about.

I'm confident they are mostly all being bought for collections anyway. There seems little risk that they will get played.

Quote from: Brad J. Murray;665427I'm confident they are mostly all being bought for collections anyway. There seems little risk that they will get played.

Yes.  So far, everyone who has the book, that did a quick overview of the book cover, says it looks very nice on their RPG shelf with the rest of their Traveller collection.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;664940I beta-tested Traveller 5.  And that was enough for me.  Traveller 4 is way better, and I don't even like Traveller 4.

QuoteMongoose is all I play now.  Easy to ref and easier to play.

For my money MGT is the absolute best version of the game when it comes to sheer accessibility and playability. I could personally live with CT, but I'd miss some of MGT's ideas (the embellishments they've given to the life path system and the sheer range of careers for one thing), and if I had to pick one edition to give to an absolute beginner I'd choose MGT every time.

Quote from: Warthur;665432For my money MGT is the absolute best version of the game when it comes to sheer accessibility and playability. I could personally live with CT, but I'd miss some of MGT's ideas (the embellishments they've given to the life path system and the sheer range of careers for one thing), and if I had to pick one edition to give to an absolute beginner I'd choose MGT every time.

Accessibility is a good word.  MgT certainly allows for that when I'm getting new players into a Traveller session (or any game setting I'm using the RPG for) with a minimum of rules explanation.

Quote from: David Johansen;665276You should try that immediately then.



No, it actually applies real physics.  Ranging from three dimensional combat and movement using a chart to figure distances to heat radiators being one of the most crucial systems on a ship.

I once wrote a fairly simple 3d tactical starship combat game and made a chart for range.

Non direct fire missiles and torpedoes were such a pain in the ass, I ended up making 'fast' missiles direct fire, but impacted after beam weapons. For 'slow' torps I made them powerful but not numerous.

But torpedoes were cumbersome.

Never could decide if the 3d element actually added any fun factor over the more common 2d.

Quote from: Bill;665438Never could decide if the 3d element actually added any fun factor over the more common 2d.

Until you have four ships, the third dimension adds nothing. (Three points define a plane.) After that, they add very little, really. Fleets generally tend to move together, because it's generally good tactics to concentrate fire, so you really need more than three sides for 3D movement to have much practical value.

With the usual one on one ship battle, there's literally no difference between detailed 3D vectored movment and a completely abstract system that tracks only range, difference in speed, and difference in acceleration.

Dudes, this is crazy talk.

I just want to say, "I hit him with my sword."

Quote from: 1989;665480Dudes, this is crazy talk.

I just want to say, "I hit him with my sword."

But what about the angle of incidence when the blade strikes the enemies armor?

Quote from: Bill;665488But what about the angle of incidence when the blade strikes the enemies armor?

I do think it's humorous when games try to directly model real combat, mostly because unless you've actually been hit with a sword (not SCA, sorry) or shot at with bullets, you have no idea what combat is like. Marc Miller was in Vietnam, so at least he has a legitimate base of experience; Stephen Cole was in the Army. No idea what Richard Tucholka's background is, but I'm led to believe he might have a background in forensics, or at least read a lot of medical journals. That doesn't make for a fun game, mostly because real war fucking sucks ass. Give me D&D's simple roll-to-hit and that's as close to real-life combat I need.