Savage Worlds is another one for me. I really wanted to like it, read the original book and all... I just don't "get" what's so cool about it. I like the Savage World of Solomon Kane, and would run it, but I can't say I'm particularly enthused by the system itself.

Over the Edge - Liked the mystery and the interesting (if unrealistic) nature of the setting, but the system SO didn't fly for me. Over course over at TBP, there were people singing its praises, and I just had to roll my eyes.

Savage Worlds - Many people I game with really dig this system, but to me, it's not intolerable, but for any game I would want to play with it, I could think of a better system.

D&D in all its ugly incarnations.
Earthdawn. Because it is Earthdawn.
Amber. Because it's diceless and an utter mess of "Talk the GM into giving you what you want".

D&D 3.0e, 3.5e and 4e. D&D isn't perfect, but for the most part, I like it for what it is. I'm OK with houseruling it to better fit your ideas, but if I wanted a comprehensive skill system like 3.5e's, I'd rather be playing Runequest. If you want everyone to be a combat monster right from the start, more power to you, but I feel there are games better suited to this. I'll play any of these gladly, but if I'm running D&D, I'm certainly going for an earlier edition, or another system entirely.

Exalted. I was promised The Iliad and given fucking Dragonball Z. And dice pools above 10 every now and then I can deal with, but regularly chucking 35+ dice and counting for successes gets old, real fast.

Iron Heroes. So much promise. Such catastrophic execution. Was any of this actually playtested?

Castles & Crusades. The basic idea is solid, but the end result is a game which is, as many have already remarked in this very forum, neither fish nor fowl. Also, the Cleric being a better trap-spotter than the Rogue is just wrong. And did the Barbarian really need a boost, Trolls? Really?

Unhallowed Metropolis. All style, and precious little substance.

FATE 3.0e. Aspects are a clever, clever idea. I love it that you can whip up a full-fledged character in five minutes. But it still feels too damn abstract for me.

Quote from: The Butcher;449476Iron Heroes. So much promise. Such catastrophic execution. Was any of this actually playtested?

Do you know about IH Revised?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;449466Over the Edge - Liked the mystery and the interesting (if unrealistic) nature of the setting, but the system SO didn't fly for me. Over course over at TBP, there were people singing its praises, and I just had to roll my eyes.

I'm curious to know what about the system didn't work for you. I definitely roll my eyes at the suggestion that it -- or any system, for that matter -- can do "anything," but I think OtE is very good at what it sets out to do.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;449489I'm curious to know what about the system didn't work for you. I definitely roll my eyes at the suggestion that it -- or any system, for that matter -- can do "anything," but I think OtE is very good at what it sets out to do.

In short, it was the system that made me decide that "define on the spot" or "roll your own" traits are untenable. The borders of PC abilities are entirely too fuzzy for my comfort.

I shall chime in on the Savage Worlds disappointment.  I really wanted to like it, as at the time I wanted both a rules-light, minis-inspired RPG, and a "make your own minis" system.

But the system accomplishes neither.  It's too bare-bones for an RPG, and too clunky for a miniatures wargame.  And the cards and other folderol were just awkward and unnecessary.  

I also wish I liked Shadowrun more than I do, because of the CP games, I think it's the only one that gets the decking system right, but damn if the whole hackneyed fantasy grafting doesn't grate on my every time.  

I've also basically decided that I don't like D&D outside of video games.  I had a blast with the Neverwinter Nights series, I really did, but by and large my experience with the game outside of that context is that the game just doesn't work when a computer isn't doing the math, and the artificiality of the game constraints I find both hard to roleplay around, and increasingly boring the more I play.

There's only so many times you can play the cleric, before you realize it's given you all the gameplay it ever will.  It's too formulaic, and the alternative of multi-classing too book-keeping heavy and counter-intuitive.  

So no more D&D for me.

I looked through my collection and found no games that I really wanted to like but couldn't.

If I didn't like them, I didn't buy them.

I did sell my entire Rolemaster collection after the company collapsed in 2001.

As part of SWAG I was gifted a copy of Jadeclaw in 2004, however sold it at the GenCon auction in 2007. There was nothing inherently wrong with it, Playing and running games about intelligent furry talking mammals just didn't appeal to me.

nWoD. I think the Vampire setting is better, but every other setting is much worse. And the nWoD combat rules suck.

Quote from: hanszurcher;449388I have been lucky so far, I have yet to play a game I didn't like. Keep in mind my desire to be entertained is very strong...I saw Æon Flux in theaters three times before I realized how bad it was.

Wait! There was one game that does fit that...The Lords of Creation. It sounded so cool, just never clicked.

D&D3.0/3.5/Pathfinder - If I wanted a game where the build forums outnumber the RP ones, I'd play a MMOG.

D&D4e - Ditto, plus everything else that has been said 1000 times.

Shadowrun 4 - Ditto again.  Plus get your goddamn Transhumanism out of my Cyberpunk!

Savage Worlds - Great miniatures skirmish system for Deadlands.  RPG on it's own? Bleah.

WFRP3 - This one I really wanted to like, I still do.  At some point, I might attempt to rip out it's rotten narrative spine.

All Flesh Must Be Eaten...maybe Unisystem as a whole (this is the only Unisystem game I've played)?

I don't have an active hate for the game, it just felt limp and bland at the table in a way no other game I've ever run has.

The book reads very well, I love the zombie creation rules...the whole thing seems very sleek.  But in play, the system either felt boring and repetitive (my fiance's complaint) or overly fiddly in some areas (and in a way that doesn't really seem to jive with the abstraction of the system as a whole imo).

I keep getting tempted by Witchcraft, but my experience with AFMBE holds me back.

Hackmaster basic.  For something called basic, it was very complicated, and not clone-ish of AD&D as I had hoped.

Heroquest. I got 1e a while back and I've tried to read it a few times, but I'm both puzzled and unexcited by prospect of playing it. Part of this is due to lack of good benchmarks on abilities and challenges, part due to utter genericness of resolution, part due to anticipating problems in determining appropriate use of abilities and augments.

I'd seen an account of play where it was used for some sort of modern occult game of international intrigue, and that sounded pretty cool. Ironically, the author of the account later went on to say that Heroquest sucks.