TheRPGSite

Can an RPG get fucked up to the point that nothing will ever bring it back to being good again?

On the one hand, there are many games out there that started out pretty much ok, and ended up having their reputations or the play experience of the game destroyed by idiotic changes in the rules or setting, or the weight of too many stupid books written by asshole game designers wanting to be "radical".  

Deadlands suffered that fate. 7th sea kind of did too. I'm sure others can be thought of.

Then on the other hand I think of a game that I once believed could NEVER be redeemed after it had sunk into the depths of mismanagement and horrible writing: Paranoia.  And yet, today Paranoia XP has brought that game back to nearly everything it once was. Granted, it took about 10 years of the game not existing before that was even possible, and some of the scars haven't totally healed yet, but... does this mean there's hope for any game?

Is there hope for Cyberpunk, after the disaster that was the latest edition?

Is there hope for my beloved Gamma World, after Bruce Baugh intentionally sabotaged it to try to destroy it?

RPGPundit

I'd say Deadlands has recovered quite nicely with Deadlands: Reloaded.

And I hear there is talk of ressurecting classic Gamma World à la Star Frontiers, but I have not seen anything concrete.

As far as I'm concerned D&D 3.5 has drained out all the magic from D&D and I don't see 4th putting any of it back.

Quote from: walkerpI'd say Deadlands has recovered quite nicely with Deadlands: Reloaded.

It seems to me that Deadlands:reloaded has failed to make any kind of impact at all. Considering the immense success that was the original Deadlands at first, I would say that its a bit soon to claim "recovery".

QuoteAnd I hear there is talk of ressurecting classic Gamma World à la Star Frontiers, but I have not seen anything concrete.

If it was done by someone who wanted to honor the real Gamma World, and not butcher it the way Bruce Baugh did, that would be good news.

QuoteAs far as I'm concerned D&D 3.5 has drained out all the magic from D&D and I don't see 4th putting any of it back.

That would only be as far as you're concerned. We're talking here about games that were killed off by bad products, not "games that are still immensely popular and played worldwide by millions but that you personally don't like".

RPGPundit

For me 3.5 is the comeback kid of D&D.

Gamma World is ripe for something new and cool. I think there is a lot of pent up nostalgia that is just not satisfied with the latest attempt. Or the d20 modern version. Maybe the d20 version out of Polyhedron?

Along those lines, how is Metamorphosis Alpha 4? Since the 1st ed pdf became available I've been wondering how 4th is doing. It seems most likely to claim the title of comeback kid of MA. I was never interested in the later versions and I'd like to claim that those fucked up the MA line.

Paranoia was the example I was going to bring out (for what it's worth, I actually think XP is slightly superior to previous editions). The reason that that revival was possible in the first place is that West End Games sank like a stone and the original designers were able to prise the rights to Paranoia out of WEG's clenched comatose hands. Then Mongoose came up with much-needed capital, and agreed to let Allen Varney (a trusted friend of the Costikyan-Gelber crew) to take the helm on the new edition.

After the Crash Course Manual, the Vulture Warriors of Dimension X series, the Reboot and the nightmare that was 5th Edition, I think it was clear to everyone that West End Games was no longer physically capable of producing good Paranoia products, because nobody working for WEG understood Paranoia anymore. Remember, by that point pretty much all of the original designers had jumped ship.

I think it is entirely possible for a game line to end up in the hands of people who simply don't understand why it was good in the first place - this happened to Paranoia and Gamma World. The example of Cyberpunk shows us that it's even possible for the original designer of a game to completely lose sight of what made previous editions awesome (alternately, it's possible that the success of previous editions was actually a total accident, and Pondsmith never actually understood what made C2020 good in the first place). I also think that the example of Paranoia shows us that any game line can be redeemed, so long as it can be placed in the hands of people who clearly understand what was enjoyable and good and worthwhile about the line at its peak. If White Wolf (or whoever currently owns the Gamma World IP) lets someone who is actually sympathetic towards classic-period Gamma World helm a new edition, there'll be hope for Gamma World; if Mike Pondsmith loses control of Cyberpunk to people more capable of doing it justice, there'll be hope for that game too.

Do settings count?

If they do then I vote for Dark Sun.

I'm not sure I understand (and pundit seems to have moved the goalposts a couple of times, so that's amplifying my confusion).  What does it mean for a game to have been "fucked up"?

If it means "driven to commercial disaster", that's cool and I can think of a few.  I don't really care if my favourite game is driven to commercial disaster, though, because I still have a copy of my favourite game and can play it whenever the mood strikes.

If it means "made unpleasant to play", well that's clearly a judgement call and some will agree and some will not.  In any case, as above, I still have my copy of the version  I last though was fun and can still play any time I want, so I don't really care if more recent versions are worse.

Okay, you hate Baugh's Gamma World.  Hell, I thought first edition Gamma World was a bad and unplayable hack of first edition Metamorphosis Alpha.  But I didn't really see any point in doing anything other than just playing what I want -- Gamma World didn't ruin Metamorphosis Alpha for me -- I still have it and it hasn't magically changed because of some later product.  Ditto for D&D and Traveller.

So what is this "fucked up"?

Wait, so we're talking about commercial success?  Or playability?

Deadlands: Reloaded will probably never capture the popularity of the original, but it did a good job of reviving the setting and attaching it to a supported and playable system.  Times are different now.  Deadlands came out in a much less diversified market.  These days I don't think any single game besides D&D to take a large chunk of the market for any length of time.

As for the Star Frontiers project, if you aren't aware of it, they basically got the right to republish in digital format all the original stuff, which they have been doing, while reformatting it.  It's a pretty nice job, but essentially exactly the same game as the original.  I think that's what the attempt is with Gamma World, but I imagine WotC would be a little tighter with the rights.

Feng Shui

Not that Atlas Games screwed the pooch, as such, because they tried to get it right and did score some glancing blows, but decoupling the RPG from the CCG--in hindsight--proved to be the stroke that cut too quick to be seen, and too cleanly to be felt, until it was too late and the damage was done.  I let Atlas go on this because of the deal done to get the RPG back into print, and all that went into it; Atlas made the best of a bad situation.

The game's rules seemed okay at a first glance, but one you got into actual play and did more than a one-shot here and there--once you tried to run an actual campaign--you couldn't help but to break the game into ever-smaller pieces over time.  Compounding the problem was a flawed execution of those elements that functioned more-or-less as intended, and--due to the product line split--a lack of inclusion of fluff past the (now long-lost) original Daedalus starter decks and initial expansions.

In actual play, the stats that mattered were your highest combat skill, your Body Score (for movement, melee damage and damage resistence), your Reflexes Score (initiative), and--for those using Fu or Magic-based powers--the relevant scores.  Other scores rarely, if ever, came up and other skills rarely came up unless it was part of your archetype's thing (I had a Gambler and a Medic, so Gambling and Medicine came up a lot.).  We quickly found that you always grabbed an AK-47 if you were a gunbunny, a sword or spear if not (STR+4 base damage, for our resident Fu-fighter, meant a base of 14.), and that you jacked your AV to the skies as fast as your XP gains allowed.  (About the only thing that worked as intended was the struggle to take and hold/burn feng shui sites; the massive, and fixed, XP gains--when compared to the measily base of 3 XP--made it too hard to turn down.)

My crew and I broke that game, shattered it, and as much as I like the game and the Secret War setting, I won't run it again without essentially rewriting it all from scratch.

Traveller may well be in the dumpster.  Mongoose could pull it off but since the number one complaint about T4 seems to be the editing I doubt it.  Marc Miller?  Well, let's just say that statistical analysis and dry text book writing don't sell games.

Chivalry and Sorcery had a really solid, honest attempt at a revival and a really active fan base but personal issuses tore the company apart and C&S the rebirth simply didn't grab the sales from the fans who really weren't ready for a new edition yet.  Not even a markedly better one.

Tunnels and Trolls could have had a brilliant new edition but instead we got two and a half mediocre ones.  But there's a group of guys writing new solo adventures so who knows?  There may be hope yet.

Actually as I think about it, Palladium is a good candidate.  It was great before Heroes Unlimited and TMNT ruined the skill system.  RIFTS had a setting that brought people in but all you ever hear are complaints about the rules.

I think Rolemaster will soon go the way of C&S.  Too many of the changes Tim wants to make will only serve to destroy the things that make it unique and I've got a stack of very new looking RMfrp books.  Though I suppose one could argue that RMSS was the edition that killed the game. But I'm a pretty bitter fan with a gift for chasing the latest flaming pile of poo.  Since I like GURPS 4e I suppose it too will crash and burn shortly.

Heavy Gear once it went off Terra Nova and stayed there.

If you are including settings then I will nominate Eberron.

It seemed like a nice setting with enough variety to maintain my interest, whilst at the same time including enough elements from M:TG to keep me at it. But the setting died/jumped the shark, when perusing the Sharn book.

Near the front the city book, Sharn, City of Towers there is a short section on ceremonies and celebrations, and there is a direct reference to 9/11 Twin Towers.

Annually the townfolk recreate a crystal tower that was destroyed many years ago, only to thrown it off a cliff. The winner of the best looking tower gets to win a prize (150gp or some such), and during the ceremony everyone comes to watch and mourn.

I closed the book at that point, and shall not be returning.

How lame.

Cyberpunk is a clear example. The setting alone is now so fucked up that it would be impossible to include this into the timeline of a future edition without a lot of retro-fitting. (The only fix I could think of is to bash the whole setting with the Baseball Bat of Good Taste +3 into nothingness and assume that there _never_ was a v3.)
Additionally, I think that Fuzion is inferior to Interlock. Interlock had its quirks, but at least it was coherently designed towards a goal. Fuzion is just an garbled mix-up of "pimp-my-PC" HERO point-buy and "roll&shout" Interlock randomness that doesn't accomplish anything well. Though Fuzion never really took off (where's Sengoku now and what role will Artesia play in 3 years?), I guess the days of Interlock are finally counted.

I'd also count in SR4.
Yeah, the previous editions were executed badly, computer and vehicle stuff were simply unplayable and it was locked in a permanent rotation between tactics, realism, gunporn, Metal Gear stealthiness, James Bond and street dirt, but it was clearly a typical FASA game with great ideas and a lot of a labour-of-love feel to it.
SR4 just managed only to turn computers and vehicles into something playable and to remove the boring high karma pools that made highly experienced PCs nearly infallible.
But in the couse of changes, they stripped away all the original and loveable parts like pool resource management, kept meanwhile a lot of the garbage like 4 rolls to resolve combat (ini, attack, evasion, damage resistance) or different Essence accounts for cyber- and bioware, and managed to give it the slick, storytellish and pseudo-hip feel of a WW-style Swine game. (Not that you have to buy into this and couldn't run it like a normal RPG, but it annoys the hell out of me when I stumble every few pages about the Golden Rule, "resolve it as the GM deems most dramatic"-phrases and badly written prose.)

S. John Ross recalls the 90's era WEG writer's guidelines 'urging writers of Paranoia material to be "gritty" and target fans of X-Men and Warhammer 40k.'

You don't get a much clearer example of a loss of vision than that.

Quote from: jrientsS. John Ross recalls the 90's era WEG writer's guidelines 'urging writers of Paranoia material to be "gritty" and target fans of X-Men and Warhammer 40k.'

You don't get a much clearer example of a loss of vision than that.

Erik worked for WEG?! :eek: :D

Quote from: David Johansen... I think Rolemaster will soon go the way of C&S.  Too many of the changes Tim wants to make will only serve to destroy the things that make it unique and I've got a stack of very new looking RMfrp books.  Though I suppose one could argue that RMSS was the edition that killed the game...

I would certainly argue that RMSS was something of a disaster, both in terms of rules (overly long and complex character generation; even more charts) and presentation (poorly organised, followed by the near-identical RMFRP with its pared down core book, and subsequent confusing supplements).

My impression is that the return to 2e in the form of Rolemaster Classic (and its intro, cheap book Rolemaster Express) is the right move for the system.  That's a better base for a future new version (albeit one that incorporates some of the better features of RMSS/RMFRP), and there seems to be more fans of that version of RM.  (Also, the similarity between RM Express and MERP can't hurt either, given the popularity of MERP back in the day.)

So I don't think RM is 'beyond salvation'.  It's just returning to an earlier form.  :cool:

Quote from: One Horse TownErik worked for WEG?! :eek: :D

:D

Quote from: AkrasiaI would certainly argue that RMSS was something of a disaster, both in terms of rules (overly long and complex character generation; even more charts) and presentation (poorly organised, followed by the near-identical RMFRP with its pared down core book, and subsequent confusing supplements).

You misunderstand me.  I hate RM2 with a purple passion.  To the extent that I've walked away from freelancing for ICE over it.  Nor do I think that pandering to the whiners is in any way a good move for ICE.

David, what about RM2 gets your goat?

Quote from: WarthurI think it is entirely possible for a game line to end up in the hands of people who simply don't understand why it was good in the first place - this happened to Paranoia and Gamma World.

Quote from: WarthurIf White Wolf (or whoever currently owns the Gamma World IP) lets someone who is actually sympathetic towards classic-period Gamma World helm a new edition, there'll be hope for Gamma World; if Mike Pondsmith loses control of Cyberpunk to people more capable of doing it justice, there'll be hope for that game too.

Well, to be fair, there are plenty of games that did stay true to their original vision and nevertheless faded into obscurity.  Heck, I think it's fair to say that original-vision Gamma World had its shot -- it faded even before the era of AD&D2 and TSR's overall problems.  These old true-to-their-original games often have a huddled core of fans who talk about how great it is, and search about on Ebay for used copies of the game to get for their players.  

Star Frontiers is a typical example, say.  I personally loved James Bond 007, myself, but it similarly faded (though I could point to license and property issues).  Amber DRPG has a fantastically loyal fan base, and I myself am going to AmberCon NorthWest in two weeks to play more of it.  However, let's face it -- the rules can't even stay in print.  

Authors of a new edition are often given a specific mandate to shake things up, to introduce sweeping change since the current edition is failing.  

Conversely, there are an awful lot of changes between the original D&D and the current 3.5th edition.  Similarly, Champions has changed enormously from it's first edition to the current 5th edition HERO System, yet it still has a thriving line.  I think it is fair to say that the HERO System has deliberately turned its back on many of the silly comic-book tropes of the early editions of Champions, which had much more of a four-color feel.  The current HERO/Champions is much like the newer comics, generally more serious.  Pendragon, GURPS, and Ars Magica have also had significant changes from their originals -- though to a lesser degree.  

Now, there are a few games that have remained successful without major change, like Call of Cthulhu.  It follows the pattern of many games, with successive editions retaining fans and typically getting thicker and thicker core books.  

This isn't to say that there aren't plenty of new editions that aren't crap.  However, just keeping things the same or "true to the original" can fail just as easily.  

Personally, I never thought much of the original Deadlands.  Among other things, it was part of a faddish nineties "cinematic" trend along with Torg and Feng Shui.  All three recommended the GM write a linear plot down to a sequence of scenes and force the players through each scene.

Well, I'm pretty much done ranting about it, having given up on ICE altogether at this point.  So I'll summarize.

1 - Stat generation method, d% drop rolls below 20 and substitute 2 90s, is far too random especially given:

2 - Development Point Award method that is heavily unbalanced in favour of high stats.

3 - Averaging of stat bonuses to get skill bonuses

4 - Stat bonuses restricted to even fives (ugh just roll a d20 and go away)

5 - Spell List Block Chance To Learn Percentages

6 - Level linked profession bonuses

7 - The need to add a whole new chart every time you want to add a skill

8 - related skills method

9 - use of dice rolls for body development ranks

10 - turn sequence

Also, Tim's absurd notion that RM2 being less complete and functional makes it any simpler in light of the above ten points.

D&D 3rd managed to come back from the wasteland that was D&D 2nd.

Of course, it did have the D&D label to help it.

I think RPGs can come back from the wilderness, yes. But there has to have been a decent play community to start with at some point.

Quote from: CalithenaD&D 3rd managed to come back from the wasteland that was D&D 2nd.

Of course, it did have the D&D label to help it.

Well, and they kept the flavour of the game while seriously improving the rules and gameplay.

But yeah, DnD went the way of all flesh, and 3e brought it back and made it good again.

By contrast, Cyberpunk for me is the one that is pretty much irrevocably fucked, in part as the genre it spoke to is dead as well.

Quote from: jhkimWell, to be fair, there are plenty of games that did stay true to their original vision and nevertheless faded into obscurity.  Heck, I think it's fair to say that original-vision Gamma World had its shot -- it faded even before the era of AD&D2 and TSR's overall problems.  These old true-to-their-original games often have a huddled core of fans who talk about how great it is, and search about on Ebay for used copies of the game to get for their players.

That's true, but I got the impression from Pundit's post that he was talking about a decidedly different phenomenon: games which drift from their original visions to the extent that long-term fans can no longer see the elements which originally appealed to them in the latest editions of the game (or the latest supplements in the game line), and new people looking at the latest products can't see why the game's such a big deal - either because the game's reputation no longer matches its reality, or because the original vision hasn't been replaced with anything compelling enough to draw in a new fanbase.

QuoteI think it is fair to say that the HERO System has deliberately turned its back on many of the silly comic-book tropes of the early editions of Champions, which had much more of a four-color feel.  The current HERO/Champions is much like the newer comics, generally more serious.

That's fair enough, but I'll point out that:

a) In the case of Champions specifically, this evolution is essentially a result of a parallel evolution in comic books: HERO/Champions has grown and changed with the comics market, and so has succeeded in remaining attractive to comics fans interested in RPGs. In fact, you could probably say the core vision of Champions is "The RPG which lets you play this month's hot new comic book", and in that sense they've stayed true to that since day one.

b) In the case of other games, I think it's often a matter of refinement of the original vision - like with Pendragon or Ars Magica - or replacing the original vision with a new vision which is sufficiently compelling to draw in a new fanbase and win over a reasonable proportion of the old guard (like GURPS as it moved away from being "The Fantasy Trip, Mk 2", and D&D 3.X).

QuoteThis isn't to say that there aren't plenty of new editions that aren't crap.  However, just keeping things the same or "true to the original" can fail just as easily.

I totally agree, I just think that this the sort of failure that can happen if a game remains relentlessly true to the original vision is different from the sort of failure the Pundit is talking about here.

Interestingly, I had zero interest in comic books until I played Champions. Not really relevant to the thread, but I was totally someone who went in the other direction.

QuoteWell, and they kept the flavour of the game while seriously improving the rules and gameplay.

But yeah, DnD went the way of all flesh, and 3e brought it back and made it good again.

I don't feel comfortable with assessments like "improved rules" or "improved gameplay", but D&D3 was a viable RPG for its time, and made a lot of core D&D tropes seem fresh and fun again. Requiescat in pace, old friend.

• D&D 3rd edition (including 3.5)
• Cyberpunk v3.0 or whatever the fuck the new garbage is called.
• Shadowrun 4th ed.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: David JohansenWell, I'm pretty much done ranting about it, having given up on ICE altogether at this point.  So I'll summarize.

1 - Stat generation method, d% drop rolls below 20 and substitute 2 90s, is far too random especially given:

2 - Development Point Award method that is heavily unbalanced in favour of high stats.

3 - Averaging of stat bonuses to get skill bonuses

4 - Stat bonuses restricted to even fives (ugh just roll a d20 and go away)

5 - Spell List Block Chance To Learn Percentages

6 - Level linked profession bonuses

7 - The need to add a whole new chart every time you want to add a skill

8 - related skills method

9 - use of dice rolls for body development ranks

10 - turn sequence

Also, Tim's absurd notion that RM2 being less complete and functional makes it any simpler in light of the above ten points.

Many of those features are indeed annoying. :)

Fortunately, points 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 are all corrected by optional rules included in the core Rolemaster Classic rules.  In fact, point 10 has been changed in the core rules -- RMC has a new turn sequence system.

Also, all of those optional rules have been incorporated into Rolemaster Express in order to render the game more accessible to new players.  I wouldn't be surprised if they become 'core' in any new version of RM.

I don't understand complaint number 7, since most skills use the same two charts (static and moving).  It seems like a criticism of RMSS/RMFRP instead (where every skill has a separate chart).

Quote from: David Johansen... Nor do I think that pandering to the whiners is in any way a good move for ICE.

Well, I do think it is a good move for a company to satisfy as many consumers as possible.  Obviously there are more RM2 fans than RMSS/RMFRP fans.  Why the former qualify as 'whiners' escapes me.

Quote from: David JohansenTraveller may well be in the dumpster.  Mongoose could pull it off but since the number one complaint about T4 seems to be the editing I doubt it.  Marc Miller?  Well, let's just say that statistical analysis and dry text book writing don't sell games.

I think this is a dodgy one to call. I think TNE was ultimately dumpster worthy and I don't feel I can really address T4, but GT and T20, while not my preference, don't seem to be beyond salvation.

Ah, but number seven is the skill costs table, not the static maneuver table (of which RMSS actually has only one, it's just got funny results written up for each category) and the skill costs table is the deal breaker for me.  I wish them well and Tim's a nice guy I just disagree intensely with his game design preferences and the mangement's direction and.  Also I call RM2 fans whiners because all the time ICE was going through bankrupcy all they could do is whine about how they wouldn't support RMSS because it was too complex.  Which I still argue it isn't.  Scary in its level of completion, sure.  But for every point where it's more complex there's one where RM2 was worse in the core rules and that's without the companions to scramble it even more.

T4 is mainly hated for it's editing and some of the game design choices made, particularly the use of half dice.  Which is why I'm not so sure Mongtrav will succeed.  The half dice may be gone but there will be some obscure statistical interpretation of the new core mechanic that the fans will whine about endlessly.

For me, Rolemaster's RM2 -> RMSS -> RMC life cycle shows that no game that was once good can be completely ruined, because all it takes to fix the problem is a company with the strength to roll back the clock.

There's nothing wrong with RMSS that couldn't be fixed with careful evolutionary change in a new edition that would maintain a high level of compatability with the prior edition and thus avoid a ten year wait for various source books that already exist.  Really it's what should have been done with RMFRP.

My list would include, removing unspecified ranks from cultural and training packages, excepting hobby ranks.  The amount of flipping back to the skill list is insane.

Removing the points buy option from the talent system.  The BOP system is pretty well balanced by the huge background option cost of picking high end talents.

Tidying up the skill progressions, particularly I'd get rid of the combined progression and the special (0*1*1*0.5*0) progression and use more opposed rolls.  I'd also re-arrange the weapon categories to include combat manuvers and trim the number of categories (particularly with an eye to the Science / Analytic * Addinfinitum from SPAM)

Some of the redundant skills like Spell Mastery (there's a whole spell list for modifying spells already) and Power Striking / Adrenal Strength would get cut.

I wouldn't mind seeing some of Tim's combat system mods become the standard, but I'm very opposed to any major changes to Spell Law, other than some improved rules on shapechanging because if it doesn't give you the stats it's lame and let's face it, shapechanging is really less powerful than conjuring a creature and using its stats.

I think moving backwards is always a tragic mistake.

Quote from: David JohansenI think moving backwards is always a tragic mistake.

Unless you are standing on the edge of a precipice.:cool:

But then you'll never find out what's at the bottom!

If there's anything that years of D&D has taught me, it's that there's always spikes at the bottom.

Quote from: David JohansenTunnels and Trolls could have had a brilliant new edition but instead we got two and a half mediocre ones.  But there's a group of guys writing new solo adventures so who knows?  There may be hope yet.

I think it would be a shame if Tunnels and Trolls ever became a 'well designed' or 'well thought out' game. That isn't really the point of T&T, its meant to be a bit clunky, a bit old fashioned, and a bit different.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf there's anything that years of D&D has taught me, it's that there's always spikes at the bottom.

That's sig-worthy, Mr. McMurray.  Classic.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf there's anything that years of D&D has taught me, it's that there's always spikes at the bottom.

True but there may be change in the pockets of the former victims!

Quote from: David JohansenTrue but there may be change in the pockets of the former victims!

Yeah, cursed change (probably of devouring or backbiting).

Quote from: James McMurrayIf there's anything that years of D&D has taught me, it's that there's always spikes at the bottom.

LMAO. Funny cuz it's true.

-=Grim=-