I was reading an older thread with a similar topic today, and thought of GURPS, for example. One of the common criticisms is that it can't do high powered heroes very well, which is something I've been saying myself for several years now. I'll tell people straight up that I think Champions is a much better generic system for super-heroes, but that I believe GURPS is better at almost anything lower-powered.

I was also thinking about 4E D&D today, and that I agree that it seems very much like a video game. However, I enjoy 4E, and part of my enjoyment is for that very reason. I've long been dissatisfied with a group of players who like political-heavy games, and wanted something high-powered with a video-game-like framework. I don't think I've ever seen someone on the net who, like me, both 1. thought 4E D&D DID play like a video game, and 2. liked it for that very reason. I don't see it as much of a criticism.

Neither of these repeated criticisms distract from my lack of the game, and I don't feel the need to defend them on those merits. I will defend GURPS on a complexity issue, and have often cited the 'its only got one main roll, three d6 and roll under' mechanic, because to me its a game without hundreds of different sub-systems, that I see popping up in a lot of older games.

I guess I'm asking, of the oft-cited criticisms of your favorite game, what do you agree with, and what do you not agree with? Do you think you're fair or defensive?

I don't criticise. I house rule till it works and urge others to do likewise.

Quote from: Ian Warner;460472I don't criticise. I house rule till it works and urge others to do likewise.

Well, I've tried doing numerous house rules to fix the 'supers issue' for GURPS, but it usually just ends up frustrating me. I've even tried to come up with ideas like 'the physics on Marvel Earth are different, so it has a cinematic strength chart that I've made up here, if you're on this planet you haven't to use this strength chart'. Still, solutions like that break the game a bit, and I think its still a fair criticism of GURPS.

While not as elegant as Hero System I feel that 4e GURPS has fixed the issue.  The result is  gritter supers game. As for the OP I criticize the weakness of the GURPS line over on the SJGame forum as much as I praise the good stuff.

I think, for me, it very much depends on the specific criticism. I don't like 4e for exactly the reason you do like it. To me, it seems too much like fantasy superheroes, and I'd rather not play that, I prefer fantasy to be grittier. However, I thought in the past and still think 4e D&D is perfect for a Chinese  wuxia style fantasy game. I can totally see a Journey to the West, Crouching Tiger, Iron Monk style game being a blast with 4e. It would be a great base for a Mortal Combat rpg. Or, as you've stated in your OP, the video game rpg style. Fable? It's perfect for that. So I suppose what I'm saying is, I try to be fair in both criticism and praise, make clear that I'm expressing only my opinion, and in the end, wtf do I know anyway If you're having fun, rock the fuck on brothers and sisters

I will, however, point out when I think a criticism is unfairly made, and I'll try to include why I think that. A good example is that pre-4e fighters aren't fun. I have had loads of fun playing pre-4e fighters, and I'm in fact playing one now in this site in Benoist's Ptolus pbp game. The character is awesome, even without the cool powers If an individual does not enjoy playing pre-4e fighters, that's their personal opinion and preference, it does not mean all games pre-4e are "broken" or "suck". That kind of difference in preference is exactly why we have so many different games. Really, the only regret I have about the direction taken with 4e D&D is that it's market share makes finding players for the style of games I prefer a little bit tougher. In the end, if we put this in the context of your question, this is my problem and taking away the loads of fun 4e players are having wouldn't be good either. So, I either find a way or find something else to do My answer is, speaking for myself, I try to be fair in my criticisms and stay open to being wrong, and try to pay attention to context.

In WFRP 1, 2 and Dark Heresy I find that the general criticism of the high fail rate of 70% to be a fair criticism.   However the fix for that, which is in the rules is that most general test should be at +20%.  Which means that your average 70% fail rate, becomes a 50/50 chance for something that a character is competent at but for whatever reason there is some chance of failure.  That 70% fail rate is actually reserved as the starting point for a more difficult situation.  So I'll defend it, in that it works.  But I accept that people who are new to it or aren't fans of modifying difficulty numbers as freely that the high wiff factor can be a problem.

In WFRP 3 the criticism that it's got to much stuff is also very fair.  But I'll defend it because while some of the bits aren't needed.  Most of the bits are very helpful and facilitate a much faster and smoother running game then previous versions.  Also for me I like the tactile quality all the bits bring.  But I understand for some people their hangup.

Quote from: Ian Warner;460472I don't criticise. I house rule till it works and urge others to do likewise.

How can you make houserules if you don't first have criticisms of the game that you need houserules to fix?

I play a lot of GURPS, and the complaint I hear first and foremost is "it's a toolkit and I don't want a toolkit."

Which I can't really argue with -- to each their own. You don't like it, for the love of fuck, don't play it.

But then the criticism usually goes down this road:

"It's too complicated." - okay, use GURPS Lite.

"Not complicated enough." - okay, then just use the rules you want.

"I shouldn't HAVE to customize anything ever or make any houserules or come up with a setting of my own." - well, that's just a jumped-up way of making the first criticism, which, again, I can't really take issue with, even though it amounts to the "you never meow" attack:



It's when people bust out nonsense like "there should be an in-between rulebook that's neither a full core set nor a freebie that panders to my specific tastes otherwise this game is unusable by anyone." That, I'll argue with, because it's a bit crap.

But criticisms that GURPS is really crunchy and requires a lot of work on the front end -- can't argue, because it does.

I'll agree that BRP and GURPS aren't particularly suited, out of the box, for high-powered 4 color superhero games that emulate the comic books.

I'll disagree that BRP's skill system leads to a 'golf bag' approach to weapons use... or that GURPS is overly crunchy... once you get past character generation.

I have no problem whatsoever criticizing my favorite games.

3e really did break the fuck apart at high level unless you had a computer doing it for you in something like NWN.

DC Heroes is great, but the point buy system is needlessly convoluted, and until you get used to it, the charts do slow down play for the first couple sessions.  

DC Adventures is pretty great, but the Lego-box approach to effects-based systems means you have to already know what you wanna make and how to make it before you can start actually making it, which isn't very friendly for new players or players without an idea.  It also borrows the AP chart from DC Heroes while failing to take full advantage of it's elegance.

Gamma World 4th has the coolest goddamn concept and chargen in the history of gaming, but damned if that skill system ain't broke, and I'd never use the identify flowchart in a million years.

GURPS 3e really does suck outside of low-powered stuff without custom rules because the 3-18 scale is just too damn small to fit all power levels meaningfully within the system.

I'm a critic by nature.  "The unexamined life is not worth living" and all that, nothing is perfect, and it is only be acknowledging perfection that we may come closer to attaining it.  I can't think of a single thing I ever played I can't find flaw in, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it or don't enjoy life in general, it means I'm not an uncritical simp.  

I think it's an important skill to be able to break a thing apart and be able to say why you like it or don't like it, and it is rare that I can't accomplish such unless I simply haven't informed myself about it sufficiently, which makes me ignorant and is thus a flaw to be corrected in myself, should I care enough.  

Knowledge is power, and criticism is the instrument by which it is honed.

I kinda get this topic. But in a way, it's situational when I choose to debate them. There's certain things with pretty much any system, and often what might be a feature in one eye, it is possible to see as a bug in another. That I usually don't bother with. Y'know, to each their own.

The ones that do confuse me are the "why aren't you an apple, mr. orange?" or the generic complaint that something's incomprehensible without mentioning what that is per se.

For example, Forge topics that complain when a game doesn't offer more author control when really the game wasn't designed with that option in mind (but this might be more community attitude than anything). Like sure AD&D has some flexibility, but it's really not going to incorporate mechanics akin to Once Upon a Time (great game!). Kinda not AD&Ds fault. Another would be like how In Nomine is considered unplayable by how confusing it is, but no one says where exactly it's confusing and unplayable. Love the game, think it's playable, dunno where to help the person. Is it degree of success die disconnected from the target number roll? Is it HP can be too bloated for RAW combat rules? Or is it that Kyriotates are rather mindblowing and seemingly impossible to roleplay without LSD?

One can't have dialogue with the former because the expectations are too divergent. Whereas one can't have dialogue the latter because the criticisms are too vague. I don't really care about changing people's minds to play what I want, but I do like helping people who are frustrated with something I enjoy learn how to overcome their frustration. I'm sure in internet speak that translates into flame wars, however.

No game couldn't be improved, but my favorite games are my favorite games because they do something right that other games don't.

But while some criticisms of my favorite games are valid IMO, some are a matter of perspective, and some are just out to lunch and obviously based on unreasonable nits or not really giving the game a chance in the first place.

Quote from: Yevla;460468I guess I'm asking, of the oft-cited criticisms of your favorite game, what do you agree with, and what do you not agree with? Do you think you're fair or defensive?

Those who don't like the game - particularly for ideological or other intrinsically personal reasons - probably won't ever feel as if I'm being objective or fair (even if the Virgin Mary floated down on a cloud and said I was) and those who like the game probably would give me the benefit of the doubt even if I wasn't always being as objective and fair as I could be.

As for the other part, it comes down to the specific arguments. Sometimes I agree, but usually not. For example, I think 4e's combats, particular when you get to higher levels, do take long than Basic, 1e, and 2e combats. On the other hand, calling 4e is a board game or MMO is stupid. So...shrug.

Seanchai