Quote from: SeanchaiHow about we let people have their say without attacking them or their choices? I'm surprised at some of the things that made people's lists, but...shrug.

Seanchai

Oh, I'm not accusing Lev of being a fussbudget, I'm saying that Lev is a fussbudget.

Of course, having translated Gygax into English I can see where Lev is coming from. Being rushed into production certainly didn't help Mythus in any fashion.

And while I'm typing this up, keep in mind that a bad play experience can ruin even the best RPG for someone. It takes a rare actor to raise a bad play out of the mire, but there are many actors who can ruin King Lear

I have yet to play any RPG that did not require some level of house-ruling, so a game that needs house-rules will not automatically go on my shitty game list. I only put games on my list that I have actually played and didn't have fun with. I assure you that I can have more fun with 5 minutes of RIFTS or AD&D 2E than a month of playing any Indy game that supposedly has a perfect rule set.

Quote from: WarthurWith a little houseruling, AD&D 1e is indistinguishable from Rules Cyclopedia D&D, yet both games fared very differently on the "top 10" poll. "You can houserule out things you don't like" is the number one most-used copout whenever criticisms of a game come up, and it's one I particularly despise: it's acknowledging that a criticism is valid, but denying that it's at all important.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadMythusmage, am I to understand you actually tried THE GAMES THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED?

Far enough to know that if I ever met the designers I'd want them naked, heavily tranquilized, and chained to the wall. We're talking about the kind of souls God would have to wipe clean and start all over again with. Honey badgers would be easier to get along with.

Gabriel, you need better GMs.

Seems to me most folks in this thread are talking about games where they had bad experiences caused by bad game moderating. Likely GMs who didn't understand what they were doing, what the game was trying to do, or who tried to do something with the game the game wasn't designed to do, and fucked that up.

Then you have the poor chap who thought that Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth was an actual roleplaying game. (It's actually a game design system that needs to be translated from Academia Pretensia to English.)

Quote from: RockViperI have yet to play any RPG that did not require some level of house-ruling, so a game that needs house-rules will not automatically go on my shitty game list. I only put games on my list that I have actually played and didn't have fun with. I assure you that I can have more fun with 5 minutes of RIFTS or AD&D 2E than a month of playing any Indy game that supposedly has a perfect rule set.

But would you at least agree that it's preferable to have an RPG which you enjoy *and* which requires a minimum of houseruling?

Quote from: mythusmageGabriel, you need better GMs.

Seems to me most folks in this thread are talking about games where they had bad experiences caused by bad game moderating. Likely GMs who didn't understand what they were doing, what the game was trying to do, or who tried to do something with the game the game wasn't designed to do, and fucked that up.

I am going to trust the people posting to this thread to tell the difference between a problem with their GM and a problem with the rules. I've been in games where both the players and GM have thrown up their hands and said "Enough of this stupid game! Let's play something better." This despite the best efforts of both GM and players.

Quote from: mythusmageFar enough to know that if I ever met the designers I'd want them naked, heavily tranquilized, and chained to the wall.

:raise:



:what:




:stick:

Quote from: WarthurBut would you at least agree that it's preferable to have an RPG which you enjoy *and* which requires a minimum of houseruling?

That would be nice, but there will never be a game that doesn't need some level of tweaking be that house-rules or outright ignoring of rules that inhibit fun.

There is no such thing as the "Perfect RPG"

Quote from: Christmas Ape:raise:



:what:




:stick:

I speak of the kind of people who would gleefully try to get your carpet pregnant.

Quote from: RockViperThat would be nice, but there will never be a game that doesn't need some level of tweaking be that house-rules or outright ignoring of rules that inhibit fun.

There is no such thing as the "Perfect RPG"

That's true, but that doesn't make "You can houserule it so that it works differently!" a valid defence of a game - specifically because you can apply that argument to any game.

Quote from: WarthurThat's true, but that doesn't make "You can houserule it so that it works differently!" a valid defence of a game - specifically because you can apply that argument to any game.

My point is you cannot use house-ruling as a valid attack.

Quote from: SettembriniUrban myth.
It´s playable, even after the RAW. Making characters is lengthy. With some houseruling, it´s a blast!

Ummm... it's not an urban myth if it's my own experience.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkUmmm... it's not an urban myth if it's my own experience.

How do I know this isn't from your family photo album?
Uncle Harry



P.S. Of course you can house rule Paranioa into the HMS Pinafor. But if there is a laundry list house rules that must be done finish the designer's job of a enjoyable game? Come on. And yes, games that are fun without requiring a single rule change do exist (at least for me). Sure the people I play with still tweak for optimization for our tastes but that doesn't mean I couldn't play the game fine straight out of the box. I've actually stopped playing games that I don't have the option to do that with.

Quote from: Gabriel9. Universe (crunchy as fuck for no reason whatsoever.)

Which one? Tower Ravens, or SPI?

My list, with higher numbers denoting less liked. May be an overlap with some of my favorites--I'm going from actual play per the OP's requirements, but I'm also making allowances for what may be extenuating circumstances (e.g., crap players).

5. Dogs in the Vineyard--contrived morality plays and excessive "checking" over the consensual reality between GM & players. Game claims not to force beliefs on the players but that makes it close to unplayable for me; my honest judgment of the situation is that it's altogether f-ed up, so maybe the only way to win is not to play the game.

4. The Mountain Witch--in fairness I enjoyed the people around the table in this one, but in the end I just felt like it was hollow.

3. AD&D 1e--not enough guidance in the game to overcome other elements which encouraged asshat GMing. Could I GM it "right"? I think so, but that's not the point here.

2. Burning Wheel/Burning Sands--poorly engineered (fiddly) and often confusingly explained (e.g., combat). Still, I want to give this one a serious go, if I can put together a group that's sufficiently committed to learn it bit by bit and work through the difficult parts.

1. GURPS 3e--involved character creation with a less-than-successful effort at point-balancing (essentially still requiring GM vetting in the end); fact that many ads/disads (especially wealth but also social and others) have to be "bought off" in addition to and in spite of being changed through the actual events of the game just didn't sit right with me. Still, the biggest problem was just a bad player.

You know, I could probably make a case for both Universe games to fit in the top ten.  One because it never was complete enough to play and the other because it was just so bizzare.  Take your pick.