Quote from: KoltarRezendevous - Lighten up dude.

Its a definite pattern on the Big Purple that the same 3 or 4 games get mentioned within 3 or 4 pages of each other in almost every thread that asks a variation of :

"Which system would you use for *BLAH* ?"

If you haven't noticed that you've been observant.

 Oh - and I readily admit I've been one of the chorus that chimes in with "GURPS 4/ecould do that just fine!"  -or- "GURPS 4/e would be the best RPG for that."    

 I'm guilty officer - So sue me - or just roll your three damn six siders and get under the number ... thank you.


- Ed C.

There are cycles to these things, though. Look a few months back, and Spirit of the Century would be repeatedly and enthusiastically suggested by multiple people.

Closer to a GURPS release date? More GURPS recommendations. (In fact, this for pretty much any system that has a regular release schedule; Exalted and WFRPG both get recommended, often seemingly inappropriately, much more often when a big release has just hit.

Quote from: LeSquideThere are cycles to these things, though. Look a few months back, and Spirit of the Century would be repeatedly and enthusiastically suggested by multiple people.

Closer to a GURPS release date? More GURPS recommendations. (In fact, this for pretty much any system that has a regular release schedule; Exalted and WFRPG both get recommended, often seemingly inappropriately, much more often when a big release has just hit.

This is quite right.

Honestly, one of the things I'm looking forward to with the upcoming Riki-Tiki-Traveller and DnD4 releases is the fan-driven propaganda that will precede them. It'll be a hoot!

Also, since Exalted was one of the leaders in fanboy lies that I've seen, I'd like to get a confirm or deny on the rumor that the majority of hype for Exalted was actually driven by people who were paid to shill the game by White Wolf. Anyone got any info?

This thread has been very informative on who is thin skinned and humorless.

"Waah!  Someone dissed my game."

I think it's obvious that this thread is more about fanboys than the games themselves.

I'm kinda sad nobody's beating up on my favorites, really - I like Vampire and all, but the last time I played we burnt down one wing of a hospital trying to dispose of vampire evidence in the morgue, so I for one don't believe in its 'deep roleplaying potential' overmuch.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI'm kinda sad nobody's beating up on my favorites, really - I like Vampire and all, but the last time I played we burnt down one wing of a hospital trying to dispose of vampire evidence in the morgue, so I for one don't believe in its 'deep roleplaying potential' overmuch.

That goes for any game decribed as deep & meaningful or as art. It's like saying that eating popcorn while watching House of a Thousand Corpses will inevitably result. Of course, some people will eat nothing, some will have a coke or a munchy bar. You just end up getting annoyed with the people eating popcorn, 'cos they're so noisy about it.

Quote from: grubmanThe problem is that most people remember the AD&D 1st edition they played...which was basically a version where they ignored 75% of the rules that they either couldn't understand, never read, or were just stupid.

Ain't that the truth. I realized that a few years ago when rereading the 1E rules. I ended up going with the Basic/Expert rules.

Quote from: The_ShadowThis line is hardly a "lie", it's an opinion. Its proponents think C&C is more rules-light than 3e and retains more old-school flavour, while still having a contemporary unified mechanic. And they think that 3e should have hewed closer to that design philosophy. Maybe you prefer 3e, but I don't see why it gets you hot under the collar when others say they wished 3e had been more like C&C.

I think you misunderstand why I mentioned this.  It's not because the comparison pisses me off, it's because when "fanboys" say this sort of thing, rather than really focusing on the games strong points, it just comes across as fanboyish and no one takes it seriously.  I don't like the comment because I think it turns more people off to the game thatn it turns on.

But, in the end, you are right, it is an opinion I guess.

P.S.  When did I say I prefered 3e (If you look in the credits of the C&C PHB you will see my name in both the playtest and special thanks sections, so I have some intimate involvement with the game)?  That's another thing that bugs me about "fanboys" (not saying you are one, but since the example is staring me in the face)  is they automatically assume that anyone who says anything negative about thier favorite game is automatically on the side of the enemy.  Like a true non-fanboy of anything I often speak out about things that are wrong with games I love.

Quote from: Jason CoplenAin't that the truth. I realized that a few years ago when rereading the 1E rules. I ended up going with the Basic/Expert rules.

Yeah, as far as I can tell, most people who started with Basic simply switched to AD&D for the more factor...being more classes, more races, more weapons, more spells, more magic items, and more monsters.  Most never really used any of the aditional (overly complex) rules.

Quote from: LeSquideThere are cycles to these things, though. Look a few months back, and Spirit of the Century would be repeatedly and enthusiastically suggested by multiple people.

To be fair, there is a lot I feel I could do with FATE/SotC. But I wouldn't necessarily want to. Different games produce different feels. All I can think about folks who really would offer up Wushu (<-main culprits at TBP, AFAICT) or GURPS or D20 for everything have a very narrow gaming palette.

Which, I guess, is just a matter of taste, but really doesn't make for too reliable recommendations for others unless they happen to share your particular taste.

Good point, Slaad.  Most of these generic games can run a pretty wide range of genres.  When someone says "you can do it in GURPS/Fate/Wushu/SW" I don't see that as a lie.  It's more someone imposing their taste and style onto the request.  I think that is a much bigger factor than whether the system can handle the genre.  Often those initial requests don't specify taste or style at all, so it makes sense that a fan of the generic system is going to pop in and promote their favorite.

Now when you start promoting non-generic systems for settings that they weren't designed for, then you start getting into some serious myopia, though I really don't see this happening too much.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadTo be fair, there is a lot I feel I could do with FATE/SotC. But I wouldn't necessarily want to. Different games produce different feels. All I can think about folks who really would offer up Wushu (<-main culprits at TBP, AFAICT) or GURPS or D20 for everything have a very narrow gaming palette.

Which, I guess, is just a matter of taste, but really doesn't make for too reliable recommendations for others unless they happen to share your particular taste.

I have often agreed. The way I explain it is any system can run any genre. However the group/player/gm will have certain Elements they want out of play. One aspect of Elements is play style (or taste) they desire out of the game. For example, someone may really like D20. They like the Elements so much that they use it for everything. They have a Fantasy game they play with it and a Supers game and are perfectly happy with both. Someone who likes the Elements of  M&M for Supers states definitively "D20 cannot do Supers. You are wrong! The system must support the Genre!" It simply means they desire different Elements from their Supers game.

Bill

Quote from: grubmanYeah, as far as I can tell, most people who started with Basic simply switched to AD&D for the more factor...being more classes, more races, more weapons, more spells, more magic items, and more monsters.  Most never really used any of the aditional (overly complex) rules.

That's the story of my original group and pretty much everybody I've played with that started with the Basic set.  If an Advanced rule looked hard or stupid we fell back on the Basic/Expert rules.  We pretty much used Advanced as a toolkit for tricking out D&D to our tastes.

Quote from: NicephorusThis thread has been very informative on who is thin skinned and humorless.

QFMFT

This started off as a funny thread before a couple of people decided to act like defensive fanboys and derailed it.

To try and get the thread back on topic here are my contributions:

D&D 3.X: AoO are always straight-forward and clear-cut.  They never, ever cause arguments during a game.

Rifts: The rules work perfectly fine and never need to be revised.

Hero: Combats actually move really fast.

Heroes Unlimited: It can do typical DC/Marvel superhero gaming.

Star Frontiers: It wasn't designed as a knock-off of Traveller.

Traveller: It's still really popular.

Traveller: The setting isn't outdated at all.

Star Trek (any version): No, really, the game was extremely popular.  It just hasn't been picked up by the right company yet.

Cyberpunk v3: The doll art isn't that bad.

Cyberpunk v3: The game setting isn't that different from CP2020.

Spelljammer: The guys at TSR weren't high when they designed this.

D&D 4th: D&D really needs a new edition right now.  It's not just a way to make a cheap buck.

D&D 4th: No, it isn't being designed to work like WoW.

Quote from: jgantsStar Frontiers: It wasn't designed as a knock-off of Traveller.

You really think it was?  I mean I was playing Traveller and really didn't enjoy it much.  A bit to stuffy, mathematical, and scientific for me.  Star Frontiers came along and was just what I needed, a more cinematic Star Wars-ish look at sci fi.

I won't argue that Star Frontiers was TSRs "answer to" Traveller, and that in its first (unpublished) incarnation it was a lot more similar...but I wouldn't define it as a "knock-off because it is a very different game in mechanics, feel, and setting.

Quote from: ConanMKWell this isn't a GAME, but it involves games and fanboys.

GNS: "If you disagree with it or don't like it, that means you just don't understand it."

That is a pathetic argument, particularly coming from a group that preens itself as the "intellectuals" of gaming. I sincerely doubt GNS is so brilliant that everyone who comprehends it agrees with and loves it.

I completely understand it and believe me: it's crap. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Edited to add: More on topic...

Lie: GNS will tell you how to design a game. Or even help. Even a wee little bit.

On topic:
(Said with love): GURPS can do supers. I guess this isn't a total lie. I ran a great GURPS Supers game... but man... talk about threading the needle.


Cheers,
-E.