Quote from: RPGPunditI just wouldn't be particularly good at running a collectivist-utopian feminist-"progressive liberal" PC fantasy with a straight face.

Isn't that a fairly good summary of the romantic fantasy genre?  As opposed to a fantasy with romantic elements, I have no doubt you'd be fine with that given your actual play posts.

I can't do obvious comedy stuff, like Paranoia.  My sense of humor just doesn't lend itself to stuff like that.

Supers doesn't work for me, despite being an old-school comic fan.  I'm just not very good at doing the "filler" stuff between battles.  It makes for great comics, but is dull as dirt to me in play.

I think I run most genres well enough except I have to be able to twist the genre conventions enough to make what I consider to be an internally consistant (game-able) universe.

So high fantasy? Great, if we are willing to accept a slightly more lethal version (i.e. No 30 arrows sticking out of your guy). I love cyberpunk, but sorry, no cyberhacking (since I think the one guy going off into "cyber-ville" is not game-able IMO). Supers? Awesome, I love supers... but expect combats to be hard-fought tactical affairs... with the occassional monologue.

So, I can do them all... if I can cheat them a little bit. Except for "kitchen-sink" genres like Shadowrun and dimension hopping. The whole "everything goes" attitude bugs me.

supers.

I can't stand supers rpgs, though I like comics and such. Why do I suck at them? Can't get over that fact that most superhero rpgs are buillt with the intent to never have supers die or seem threatened.

Post-Apocalyptic.
I really don't like games where PCs are just reactive and trying to survive.
It gets piss-boring for me.

For me this genre only gets interesting once the PCs have accumulated enough resources to start rebuilding civilization.

And by then the game already is halfway out of the PostAp-sandbox.

Quote from: BalbinusIsn't that a fairly good summary of the romantic fantasy genre?  As opposed to a fantasy with romantic elements, I have no doubt you'd be fine with that given your actual play posts.

No, its a good description of Blue Rose.  There's a lot of romantic fantasy that doesn't read anything like Blue Rose.

RPGPundit

Quote from: alexandroPost-Apocalyptic.
I really don't like games where PCs are just reactive and trying to survive.
It gets piss-boring for me.

For me this genre only gets interesting once the PCs have accumulated enough resources to start rebuilding civilization.

And by then the game already is halfway out of the PostAp-sandbox.

Post-Apocalyptic doesn't mean survival necessarily.  I mean look at Gamma World, the grand-daddy of the genre.

I can do SF, but I get bored with it pretty quick.

I suck donkey balls when it comes to investigation-based pulp noir games with no fantasy or horror elements. I can't... I just can't.

-=Grim=-

My philosophy is to take the genre by the scruff of its neck and force it, kicking and screaming, to do my will.

Intrigue-heavy games. I can run swashbuckling and 007-style games where the intrigue is just something in the background that gives a reason to kick some villain ass and provide plot twists, but anything where intrigues are actually the main weapon and meat and bones of the game would suck
.
I don't know a single system that takes the intrigue resolution away from my plausibility reasoning, without pulling out the broad conflict resolution club to make every conflict the same (what would just give intrigues a thin painting to divide them from other kinds of conflicts - not much fun).
To come up all of the time with good intrigues, counter-intrigues, spionage methods, counter-spionage methods, intelligence and so on where the system can only support in parts would make my head explode, especially as I'm an adversial GM who can't just throw away neutral and fair rule usage.
Therefore, I'd stay clear from Amber, Camarilla Vampire LARP, courtly 7th Sea and everything else that would demand to rely heavily on intrigues.

Horror.  I've all but given up on it; every time I've tried running something in a horror vein it ended up with massive gunfights.  I think I'd do okay with action-oriented horror (and along those lines, I do really want to run Masks of Nyarlathotep some time), but in general it's just not something I can do well.

Superheroes, too.  I've only tried doing so a couple of times, but it's not something I can get myself into.  It doesn't help that I am not into superheroes that much -- I watch the movies and may read the occasional TPB, but that's it.

Supers. I'd really love to play a good supers game, but it hasn't happened in 20 or so years. I played in a promising game a year or so ago, but it ended after a couple of sessions.

As for the why I suck at it? Maybe it's just too confining for me play it seriously.

Quote from: BalbinusHow so?  Can you expand at all?

Also, Blood Games has magic and all doesn't it, and you seem pretty proud of it, I understand it's not fantasy (it's horror) but there are relationships between the two genres.

Just querying as I'm curious.

It's not about the magic, Balbinus. It's about the core reasoning. My Fantasy games are all SF or historical in disguise. I'm very proud of Blood Games II, but it's not at all fantasy-like. The feel is totally off.

-clash

No All Flesh . . . No zombie survival horor. Zombies creep me out, man. I invented a board game for Hot Wheels and plastic dinosaurs called "Demolition Derby on Zombisaurus Island," and I can barely play it. I built the truck from Land of the Dead (Dead Reckoning) in Hero and GURPS and CORPS, and designed some boss scenarios--but I can't play it. Just can't get my head in that space.

Voodoo zombies are ok.