You've seen the Really bad games - so bad that reading them is kinda entertaining.  Fatal, Synnibar, the 4th ed D&D that some kid made.
 
I'm curious, do you think these people grow up at some point and get some perspective - are they now terribly embarassed by what they did?  Or are they still in a basement somewhere thinking "Damn, I made the most bitchin' game evah.  If The Man wasn't keeping it down, it would be selling Millions!" and still preaching about their game?

Well, everyone has a different idea of what makes a good game.  You have all those people that can't leave any gaming system alone, they isust that it is flawed and needs tweaking.  These people I just don't understand.  Why bother even buying the system if all your going to do is spend weeks taking out rules and creating your own.  Plus they always seem to say that x system is broken when you bring it up, no matter what it is.

I under stan the little bit of tweaking here and there.  Almost every game has a couple of house rules.  But when you start in a game group and are given a 20-30 page home rule book it really just boggles my mind, especially if its for a system that your familiar with.  Also here I'm talking about modified crunch, modifying the fluff is almost mandatory in my opinion especially if your dealing with a widely published setting like Forgotten Realms.

I remember the countdown to 3e, when some of the new stuff was being unveiled in Dragon. There were guys online who, based on what little they'd seen in Dragon and in speculation online, were saying things like "well, I already have X number of pages of fixes to it." I mean, jeez, why not at least wait until you actually see the game before you "fix" it?

As for bad games and those who design them...well, I got Spawn of Fashan back when Piratecat somehow found the guy who wrote it. The guy acknowledged that it wasn't a great game, and was the product of an overly excited youth. As for the others you mention...I don't know. Maybe not enough time has passed yet for them to have real perspective on it. They probably do still think they did good work. Oh, they might admit to some problems, but I'd bet they still think that what they designed is still fundamentally sound.

I think that mentality is for those who are too lazy to come up with their own system.  A buddy of mine spent 6 years creating his own system based off of several others and it's great.  We're actually thinking about trying to publish it.

I don't know if it's laziness, really. I mean, some of these guys write up house rules and "fixes" into documents that are longer than some games. I think it has more to do with not having the creative spark to come up with something unique, but enough creativity and energy to modify what already exists.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI don't know if it's laziness, really. I mean, some of these guys write up house rules and "fixes" into documents that are longer than some games. I think it has more to do with not having the creative spark to come up with something unique, but enough creativity and energy to modify what already exists.

I see your point, it just seems like if you're going to do something, do  it all the way.  I guess to be honest, I wouldn't personally spend the time to make my own either, hell, that's why I don't DM, I'm not creative enough to even make a campaign.  Ah well.

Quote from: eCK0I see your point, it just seems like if you're going to do something, do  it all the way.  I guess to be honest, I wouldn't personally spend the time to make my own either, hell, that's why I don't DM, I'm not creative enough to even make a campaign.  Ah well.

But again, to reiterate what the Colonel seems to be saying, I think that a lot of isn't really a question of effort.  Its more simply a question of someone's abilities as a game designer, creativity, etc.

The house docs and the rule fixes aren't necessarily weak because they reflect a lack of effort or a failure to do something "all the way".  It just seems, more often than not, that the rules simply aren't playtested a statistically significant number of times - the rules lack balance, or aren't simply interesting.

Quote from: Nicephorus...I'm curious, do you think these people grow up at some point and get some perspective - are they now terribly embarassed by what they did?  Or are they still in a basement somewhere thinking "Damn, I made the most bitchin' game evah.  If The Man wasn't keeping it down, it would be selling Millions!" and still preaching about their game?

I the case of World of Synnibar, I hope McCracken never "gets some perspective".

Synnibar is not perfect--fuck, it's just barely playble--but so much enthusiam, joy and gonzo "Wahoo" imagination clearly went into it that I find it hard to really rag on the guy at all for his efforts.

And say what you will about Synnibar: It's about a million times better than anything I've ever made and about a hundred times better than about half of the .pdf's that cross my desk.

I would imagine that most people who create their own games retain a certain amount of pride in them.  If nothing else, they took the time to do it and represents a large investment of time in their lives.

Despite the fact that FATAL is insane and probably has a fewer number of players than the Rob Liefield Appreciation Society, the creator probably has a certain amount of pride in his work which he will keep for years to come.

Quote from: KnightcrawlerWhy bother even buying the system if all your going to do is spend weeks taking out rules and creating your own.  

QFT

Quote from: NicephorusI'm curious, do you think these people grow up at some point and get some perspective - are they now terribly embarassed by what they did? Or are they still in a basement somewhere thinking "Damn, I made the most bitchin' game evah. If The Man wasn't keeping it down, it would be selling Millions!" and still preaching about their game?

See, I always wonder how many of these guys see their own bad games as a big joke...  Amused at the fact that people actually bought them, play them and defend the systems fanatically against all comers.

I made all sorts of crappy games in my youth.  They're all pretty much lame.  I'm also a tweaker - but I think my tweaks are pretty much limited to campaign flavor tweaks, not game mechanic fixes.

Quote from: NicephorusI'm curious, do you think these people grow up at some point and get some perspective - are they now terribly embarassed by what they did?  Or are they still in a basement somewhere thinking "Damn, I made the most bitchin' game evah.  If The Man wasn't keeping it down, it would be selling Millions!" and still preaching about their game?

Could be either, could even be a little of both.  The thing is, it doesn't matter much.  They were living the dream - they wrote something, got it published, and got it onto game store shelves.  I actually envy them for that, because I've tried many times before, and I just don't have the gumption.

I agree with Billy here, as far as the actual "goodness" or "badness" of these RPGs.  It sort of makes me think of Ed Wood.  So often, you'll hear him described as the worst movie director ever, or hear someone call "Plan 9 From Outer Space" the worst movie ever.  These people have obviously never seen any of the plethora of shallow, vapid films that are all around us, movies made without an ounce of passion or imagination.  They are really lucky people to be able to call "Plan 9" the worst thing they've ever seen.

Now I'm gonna go make some SenZar characters.  Who's up for a game?

- DocAwk

Given that Raven c.s. McCracken of Synnibar fame lives in my area, I've often been tempted to track him down and find out...

Quote from: CyclotronSee, I always wonder how many of these guys see their own bad games as a big joke...  Amused at the fact that people actually bought them, play them and defend the systems fanatically against all comers.

Heh, I'm sure McCracken is laughing his ass off at me:)