Storygames? Simulationist? High Crunch? Low Crunch? Jenga disguised as an RPG? How have your tastes changed?
Star Wars D6.
It's been improved by the Mini-Six version. It mostly comes down to simplifying an already simple game. Four attributes instead of six, and the new static defense numbers cutting down the dice rolls by half since your defense "rolls" are now just pre-calculated averages. The other changes I liked are the new rules for Wild Dice. Instead of both a 1 or a 6 affecting the dice roll, now it's just the 6. Last, Hero points are nerfed, but simultaneously have more options on what you can use a Hero point to do.
However, I'm slowly switching over to this new game I got in May called Black Star. It might make me retire my D6 Star Wars altogether.
Anything generic, but Hero System in particular, and GURPS to a lesser extent and for the same reasons. And were I to run either again, I wouldn't run the latest versions. I'd run Hero 4E or GURPS 3E. I'm always going to be aware of the game model underlying a game. However, a generic system throws the model in my face in ways that I just can't enjoy anymore when I'm the GM.
It's not an accident that D&D 3.5 is my least favorite edition of D&D, because it is most like Hero and GURPS. Except that it shares with them a lot of fiddly accounting in GM prep, and makes it even worse, because while it is a lot like a generic system in many ways, it doesn't take advantage of that in the GM prep arena. Hero is fiddly, but after awhile you've got all the fiddling techniques down. D&D 3.5 is trying to build specifics (good!) on a flawed generic model (really bad!), which means constant referencing to prep according to the rules--or you could just wing it, which works better in AD&D/BEMCI/RC (despite their flaws) or even WotC 4E/5E (despite their other flaws).
I've heard others talk about board games and some strategy computer games affecting them this way. It's referred to as no longer playing the game but "playing the spreadsheet". Well, I don't get that playing games. I could play in a game of Hero, GURPS, or D&D 3.5 just fine and enjoy it. But I no longer have any patience "running the spreadsheet".
D&D - d20 in any edition or form. But I'm hankering to do my own 1e-2e 10-level hybrid fantasy heartbreaker for kicks and giggles. I'd condense the abilities of all classes to 10-levels, Feats would be *far* beefier. I'd toss out AC altogether, and go with Defense value based on class/skill. Armor absorbs damage. Modify spellcasting to where "Vancian" magic would be just one method, of several, to cast spells - again based on class. I'd also make spellcasting a skill-check. Rebalance stats so no stat is a dump-stat. A lot of work, but it still is an itch that needs to be scratched. If I had to run d20 natively in some form, it would be Fantasycraft.
WEG d6 - The only thing I used WEG d6 for was Star Wars. I got on the FFG train, and while fun, the truth is it has internal inconsistencies (crafting and modding) that are simply all over the place in terms of arbitrary values, which annoys the shit out of me and my players. Going forward, I'm likely to run Star Wars in Savage Worlds.
Cyberpunk2020 - I got on board with CPRed. I hate it. I love CP2020, and I think outside of Netrunning, it still holds up. But likely the next time I get into Cyberpunk, I'll use CP2020 and update the PC Roles to CPRed values, and use the CPRed Netrunning. Shouldn't be too hard. Of course, I could just take CPRed and convert it to Savage Worlds using InterfaceZero as a template and call it a day.
Atlantis - Love the old Bard games version. Love the Khepera Publishing edition. I simply don't run it since it faces too much competition at my table for other things. Maybe someday.
WoD - Tired of the system. Love a lot of the old-school 1e era stuff. I do love the system from CoD(NWoD) but ultimately I feel it's overgrown and needs massive pruning. I'm happier just running Savage Worlds Rippers or my own Horror stuff. Would be interesting to do a WoD-inspired conversion into SW.
Palladium - Love the settings. But the system... I do run SW Rifts, I may never go back. But never say never.
shadowrun/wod
sr was my first game, wod my 2nd. I still like the lore and could possibly be convinced to run a caitiff game ala Near Dark, but i'll never use those dice pool systems again. First reason is the dice lag, just got so sick of watching people take forever to resolve their rolls, second is the bugs inherent in both systems, as you get better at something you're also more likely to fumble/crit fail/glitch. fuck that amateur noise.
third reason is the chance in the culture of wod specifically. when it first came out, it was "you're the monster and you eat each others' hearts to level up" but the "storytelling" fluff of the book brought in the theater kid crowd, and we just want different play experiences. I actually want to play, not just wank on someone else's lore.
MERP--Loved this game back in the 80s-90s and ran my longest cohesive campaign using it. But over the past few years I've tried playing it a couple times and I (as well as my players) just don't have the patience for the constant use of charts and tables and the high level of bookkeeping needed. Too bad because I still love the Middle Earth setting. So I've converted a lot of MERP stuff over to BECMI/OSE. I tried The One Ring 2e and hated the mechanics. But Free League's 5e conversion, Lord the Rings Roleplaying actually looks better, though I'd still likely convert it to something else, probably Castles & Crusades, which is a very easy conversion from 5e.
GURPS - I've played GURPS for decades. Even the basic attributes have some unresolved issues - Intelligence encompasses wits, perception, willpower and charisma, which is too much, for example; some of the most popular advantages (e.g. combat reflexes) are unbalanced to the point of being mandatory.
Combat becomes boring because everyone is parrying and dodging all the time, unless you use some fiddly special maneuvers. Critical hits result in "nothing happens" about 50% of the time (except they can't be dodged).
Also, too many skills. It takes a couple of hours for experience players to create PCs in my experience (yes, I know that YOU can create one in five minutes).
But I'm nitpicking; it is a decent system overall, just not my cup of tea nowadays.
5e - I was excited at first (it was simpler than 3e, 4e, adn even AD&D), but they kept adding more crunch, and things go fiddlier as the PCs got levels... By level 10 it was too much, by Tasha's I had given up, and when the OGL fiasco happened I got compeltely turend off from D&D in general (although I still enjoy B/X and AD&D).
I used to really love AD&D. When I ran it I always had a stack of rulebooks on hand. Nowadays I like a more streamlined game, so OSE advanced really tickles my fancy. Or maybe Castles & Crusades.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on July 13, 2023, 02:16:57 PM
I used to really love AD&D. When I ran it I always had a stack of rulebooks on hand. Nowadays I like a more streamlined game, so OSE advanced really tickles my fancy. Or maybe Castles & Crusades.
Agreed; both those options, especially C&C, have replaced AD&D for me. Once you get it down, C&C just plays faster than AD&D and has basically the same level of options. And it's easier to convert later editions of D&D to C&C than back to 1e/2e.
When I got Cepheus Engine I thought it was the perfect replacement for original Traveller and used it instead. Now, however, I think Traveller is just...better. Maybe it's the presentation or flavor, but CE gives me nothing I can't get from the original LBBs.
Also, D&D 3.X. I got rid of everything except the main three books. I would probably never run it except in some specific cases.
When I used to play traveller I would like the expanded cchargen in the Mercenary, High Guard, Scouts, Merchant Prince. But it really gave the characters way too many skills compared to everyone else in the traveller universe. If I were to run Traveller today I would just use the core books, and maybe Citizens of the Imperium for chargen.
I enjoyed Megatraveller too, but it was a hot mess as well. I would just steal adventures from there now.
HERO. I have played and run so much HERO. Fantasy Hero, Justice, Inc., and more Champions than you an shake a stick at. But like tenbones, I've started asking "why would running this be more fun at the table than running the same campaign in Savage Worlds"?
Anything D&D other than 5e--not that I love 5e per se, and I've always had a love-hate relationship with D&D. But older editions simply don't have the level of customization, options and modern mechanics (Skills, Feat/Advantages, 1d20+Mod vs Target Number, etc.) I expect from a game, while 3e (my favorite edition of D&D for a long time) is just too convoluted and broken for me to deal or try to fix it anymore. But 5e is good enough and simple enough while still providing options with modern mechanics for me to run with it, even if I don't necessarily find it ideal.
Palladium System/RIFTS: I LOVE RIFTS as a setting, and there are some elements of Palladium System that I want to like and I'm sorta nostalgic about (Robotech was the 2nd TTRPG I ever played, after Basic D&D). But there's just too much about the system I think is broken for me even try. I'd rather play RIFTS with another system if I ever try it again.
Other Games...: There's a bunch of games I haven't played in years (sometimes decades) that aren't fresh enough in my mind for me to be sure one way or another, but I suspect I might not like anymore. Shadowrun, for example, has many issues with rules complexity and fiddly subsystems I'd rather not deal with at this point in my life (I have less tolerance for rules complexity than when I was a kid), and while I kinda like dice pools they have their issues and I prefer simple 1d20+Mod. Cyberpunk 2020 had way too many attributes and skills. Star Wars d6? I'd probably look at Mix-Six instead, etc.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on July 13, 2023, 01:28:28 PM
GURPS - I've played GURPS for decades. Even the basic attributes have some unresolved issues - Intelligence encompasses wits, perception, willpower and charisma, which is too much, for example; some of the most popular advantages (e.g. combat reflexes) are unbalanced to the point of being mandatory.
I still enjoy GURPS but sometimes it is too heavy for what I want to do. INT does not include charisma. Charisma is an advantage, you either have it or you don't.
3.X D&D- far too rules bloated and heavy for a D&D game. I will still play if a friend is running it, but I won't seek out a game to play with strangers. The most DM unfriendliest game I have ever run.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 13, 2023, 09:27:11 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on July 13, 2023, 01:28:28 PM
GURPS - I've played GURPS for decades. Even the basic attributes have some unresolved issues - Intelligence encompasses wits, perception, willpower and charisma, which is too much, for example; some of the most popular advantages (e.g. combat reflexes) are unbalanced to the point of being mandatory.
I still enjoy GURPS but sometimes it is too heavy for what I want to do. INT does not include charisma. Charisma is an advantage, you either have it or you don't.
3.X D&D- far too rules bloated and heavy for a D&D game. I will still play if a friend is running it, but I won't seek out a game to play with strangers. The most DM unfriendliest game I have ever run.
I don't have the books now. But Charisma comes in level (IIRC 5/level) which even Kromm admitted are too cheap. You're right that INT does not include charisma, my bad; however, social skills are based on Int (and Charisma), so a guy with high Int is suave, courageous, attentive, and smart. He is the leader, the brains, the face and the scout. Feels like too much.
Agree about 3e - I would never GM it and I'm unsure I'd play it, although I think it has a good "skeleton" and nice ideas (e.g., Int/ref/Will).
Eclipse Phase: The spiking d100 system was quite easy to run but my god was it a complicated hot mess of skills that made 3.x look simplified.
Quote from: GiantToenail on July 13, 2023, 12:19:13 AM
Storygames? Simulationist? High Crunch? Low Crunch? Jenga disguised as an RPG? How have your tastes changed?
5e: It isn't D&D. AD&D was a step away, then 3e-PF was a good walk away and 5e is on the other side of the planet.
The
Rules Cyclopedia is D&D in its most complete form 8)
GURPS: Loved it until I finally gave up on trying to make superheroes work. The system is NOT "Universal".
Shadowrun: The Sixth World is a great setting. Incredible! But the ruleset ...
(https://media.tenor.com/aarhUPUcLUYAAAAd/parks-and-rec-ron-swanson.gif)
WoD.
My first ever game that I GM'd was Werewolf the Apocalypse, and I ran WoD through the 90's and in to the early 00's. That's the last time I ran it.
3e D&D/Pathfinder 1e; I still think the 1e Pathfinder Beginner Box as a great game, but 3e is much too complicated and breaks really fast at higher level. IMO 5e D&D is just a better game.
Star Wars D6; I tried the action system when I started running Mini Six, couldn't hack it. I need Mini Six's streamlined approach.
2e AD&D; I ran Council of Wyrms and was shocked how poorly 2e held up. Older editions and OSR games just do trad D&D better, 5e does neo-D&D better. 2e is an unhappy transitional game with little merit of its own IMO.
Back in the day I used to like running Mega Traveller because of the crunch. Now, I dislike that level of mechanics and would much rather play something like Cepheus
I find it very telling that the same games keep coming up... and yet we hold those games in such high-esteem.
But when conversations about "updating" those editions/systems come up - or other systems which represent those settings come to pass - people will go gung-ho to defend those older systems. I encountered this a lot when FFG dropped Star Wars, and everyone came out with the d6 pitchforks and torches. I was one of them.
FFG Star Wars works very well. The *only* reason I've put it down is because at the level of detail I run my games in, FFG's system-flaws become real problems for me and my players. Well that, and I think SWADE would do Star Wars better.
This is true of 2e D&D as well. Same sort of phenomenon. I love 2e dearly... but unless my players demanded that I run it, I'd be more likely to create my own fantasy heartbreaker edition of it.
The D6 system, at least for fantasy (which is my favorite genre). And I guess any purely skill-based system while I'm at it (again, for fantasy). Modern and sci-fi games seem to do well with characters who are more diverse and capable at a variety of things, but for fantasy I prefer a class- or archetype-based system where each character has a more rigidly defined niche, a very particular set of skills, if you will. Plus in fantasy it feels like all characters should at least have some focus on combat, while in other genres they can do without more easily.
Or maybe this just reflects on my shortcomings as a GM
Mage the Ascension.
Not because of the mechanics. I rewrote those from the ground up shortly after they ended the line to launch the NWoD (PDFs weren't the thing they are today and I needed a reliably available rulebook for my players).
Rather it was because I got involved in apologetics ("explaining the faith") with my Church and came to understand how utterly toxic the Gnostic underpinnings of the setting were. Essentially I no longer felt like I could run the system in good conscience.
These days when I run World of Darkness I gravitate to the VtM corner of the mythos with an underpinning of "The Catholic Church is right about everything" and werewolves reimagined as suffering the curse of Lycaon and Mages are limited to Blood Magic* (Tremere and mortal Witches), True Faith (specifically Roman Catholic faith), Psychics (inborn powers) and advanced tech (not really magic, but more James Bond tier and allows the MIB to be a scary thing that can turn up).
These days I push to run hunters as PCs rather than vampires (dhampirs and similar "monster-adjacent" types are also allowed... I'm a fan of Changeling the Lost as "survivors of supernatural abuse" as that aligns with the overall cosmology I'm using) and am presently looking at a structural level rebuild of the mechanics to enable the mostly "table-less" tabletop play my groups have gravitated to (i.e. we sit around the family room on sofas and comfy chairs and roll dice on whatever flat surface we can manage... big dice pools aren't conducive for that).
* sidebar: in the cosmology I run with God only gave Cain immortality (so as to have all the time needed to repent) all the vampiric powers and curses came from his pact with Satan enabled by the first witch/demoness Lilith. This resolved the whole "what sort of God creates vampires?" matter (and also makes it more in line with Dracula's mythos where he was a satanic sorcerer and "vampirism" was just a manifestation of his magic).
Quote from: S'mon on July 18, 2023, 02:50:04 AM
Star Wars D6; I tried the action system when I started running Mini Six, couldn't hack it. I need Mini Six's streamlined approach.
Hey, good. It's not just me that thinks D6 Star Wars combat sequence is not good.
I also prefer Mini-Six static defense rule better.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 21, 2023, 01:58:36 PM
Quote from: S'mon on July 18, 2023, 02:50:04 AM
Star Wars D6; I tried the action system when I started running Mini Six, couldn't hack it. I need Mini Six's streamlined approach.
Hey, good. It's not just me that thinks D6 Star Wars combat sequence is not good.
I also prefer Mini-Six static defense rule better.
Yes, that's where I am now. Iterative initiative based on AGL rolls, attacks vs static defence. Hero Points giving +6 to one roll, not Force Points doubling all rolls. Looking back on running SW D6 in the late '80s I'm not sure now how I ever enjoyed it as written. Even at the time I remember Force Points being overpowered, no one ever ran away from Stormtroopers as in ep IV, when you could spend a FP and just blow them all away as in Rogue One.
Quote from: S'mon on July 22, 2023, 02:49:27 AM
Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 21, 2023, 01:58:36 PM
Quote from: S'mon on July 18, 2023, 02:50:04 AM
Star Wars D6; I tried the action system when I started running Mini Six, couldn't hack it. I need Mini Six's streamlined approach.
Hey, good. It's not just me that thinks D6 Star Wars combat sequence is not good.
I also prefer Mini-Six static defense rule better.
Yes, that's where I am now. Iterative initiative based on AGL rolls, attacks vs static defence. Hero Points giving +6 to one roll, not Force Points doubling all rolls. Looking back on running SW D6 in the late '80s I'm not sure now how I ever enjoyed it as written. Even at the time I remember Force Points being overpowered, no one ever ran away from Stormtroopers as in ep IV, when you could spend a FP and just blow them all away as in Rogue One.
Yup. I prefer Mini-6.
However, it dawned on me that static Defense is just a re-invented Armor Class system. Yet, it's not totally true. In Mini-6 armor can interfere with dexterity and that makes scoring hits easier to achieve. Armor's real value in D6 rules is to make it not hurt that bad, if at all, when you are hit and wearing armor.
I'm not nostalgic for either WEG SW 1st or 2nd edition. Mini-6 is better for my table.
The whole crunchy D&D/fantasy genre has left me cold for a long time. If I were to ever come back, it would be Tunnels and Trolls or one of the Arduin Grimoire variants.
5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons.
I really loved it when it first came out... Ran more than a few campaigns with it. Bound Accuracy was really awesome in the sense it felt like you could throw Higher CR rating creatures at your Party and not worry... And lower level CR creatures were still a threat.
Overtime though, the game began to show it's warts. Most of the Monsters in it are just... Big bags of Hit Points that don't really do anything interesting combat wise... and the Legendary Saves and Lair actions are just a band aid to handle all the "Save or Suck" spells that are still in the game.
The final nail in the coffin for me was reading Pathfinder 2e, which is just mathmatically a much better experience with more interesting options for Players and DMs in characters and Monsters.
Quote from: Orphan81 on July 26, 2023, 09:43:09 PM
5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons.
I really loved it when it first came out... Ran more than a few campaigns with it. Bound Accuracy was really awesome in the sense it felt like you could throw Higher CR rating creatures at your Party and not worry... And lower level CR creatures were still a threat.
Overtime though, the game began to show it's warts. Most of the Monsters in it are just... Big bags of Hit Points that don't really do anything interesting combat wise... and the Legendary Saves and Lair actions are just a band aid to handle all the "Save or Suck" spells that are still in the game.
The final nail in the coffin for me was reading Pathfinder 2e, which is just mathmatically a much better experience with more interesting options for Players and DMs in characters and Monsters.
You should do a thread that explains what's great about PF2E. I played it a few times, and nothing really grabbed me. I recall there was a three-action economy (?) that didn't feel right.
I was enjoying 5E until I joined a 2E campaign and was reminded how much more exciting and engaging the older systems are.
Now I'm in that conundrum that I've almost completely lost interest in 5E, but it's the edition pretty much everyone else is playing. I'd really like to get a Castles and Crusades campaign (Greyhawk) going where I live, but my work schedule keeps me out of town about a third of the time so it's problematic.
Quote from: Aglondir on July 27, 2023, 01:40:39 PM
You should do a thread that explains what's great about PF2E. I played it a few times, and nothing really grabbed me. I recall there was a three-action economy (?) that didn't feel right.
This is really going to be personal taste here is the thing... The majority of the forum leans towards OSR (And nothing wrong with that, I love the OSR too!) but I'm only 41... and my first games were WoD games rather than D&D. I played earlier editions, but only a session or two before 3rd edition came out...
So my whole 'feelings' on what I like about D&D is sort of influenced very heavily by that. When I want to play a "D&D" like game... I was some level of complexity and really tight math, and rules laid out.
For me, if I want to go to something that's a little more rules lite but still has crunch I desire, I'll run Savage Worlds.
At the end of the day, what I "Like" about Pathfinder (Tight Math, rules on how to do everything, Lots of player options) could be seen as a downside to other players who prefer (simpler, easier to grok rules, not everything spelled out so DMs have more wiggle room, less character options so players aren't overwhelmed, ect)
WhiteHack. I've pimped that game so many times.
Then I purchased the latest version and it was like the last two minutes of the Usual Suspects. My entire impression of the system changed.
Quote from: FingerRod on July 27, 2023, 02:12:42 PM
WhiteHack. I've pimped that game so many times.
Then I purchased the latest version and it was like the last two minutes of the Usual Suspects. My entire impression of the system changed.
What changed?
Quote from: tenbones on July 19, 2023, 06:36:24 PM
I find it very telling that the same games keep coming up... and yet we hold those games in such high-esteem.
IMO - It is because those games were very formative for many people.
Those games set a certain standard in game design, and usually were the leaders within their genre niche at their time of release.
Quote from: tenbones on July 19, 2023, 06:36:24 PM
But when conversations about "updating" those editions/systems come up - or other systems which represent those settings come to pass - people will go gung-ho to defend those older systems. I encountered this a lot when FFG dropped Star Wars, and everyone came out with the d6 pitchforks and torches. I was one of them.
Generally because those games got the job done.
In my opinion; FFG SW is wayy over complicated for what it does. FFG's funky dice system was an answer in search of a problem. Hence the push back.
That being said: Game design does not live in a vacuum.
SWd6 would only benefit from adopting some of the streamlined design aspects in mini-six, and even mythic d6.
SWd6 is a game that suffered from complication bloat in its editions, when what it really needed was system refinement.
But the underlying design was sound. As such it is very much a game that could be released today with some refinements, and be very well received.
GURPS. What a steaming pile of unnecessarily complicated inelegant mechanics. Yet we played the heck out of it in the 90's during the 2nd edition AD&D era. I don't think I could tolerate it now without a heaping dose of Rule 0.
I will say though, GURPS had some useful supplements pre-internet. I still refer to them when writing and designing games.
D&D 5e.
Started running and playing it first and enjoyed doing so for a couple of years. Slowly realized how much unnecessary time I spent on session preparation. Moved to ItDR and OSR since.
Quote from: Vladar on July 30, 2023, 03:20:28 AM
D&D 5e.
Started running and playing it first and enjoyed doing so for a couple of years. Slowly realized how much unnecessary time I spent on session preparation. Moved to ItDR and OSR since.
ItDR = ?