Quote from: The Butcher;402542Precisely how I've felt for some time now. I'll play almost anything, running is another matter entirely. And "hating" a game? WTF? Maybe RaHoWa or FATAL, but really, honestly hating a nice, regular game like GURPS or D&D or whatever? I just don't get it.

Well, I think that you may have preferences so you may say "this game is too prep-intensive, so I won't run it." That's what happens to me with GURPS, for example. I have played it, but these days I don't want to do the work of learning it so I can run it. But if a nice group of people invites me to play on their GURPS game, I'm in.

Max and I may not have the same tastes. He's a big fan of Space 1889, and he loves many things about the chargen. I don't, and I wouldn't run that game, but I would play it with him in a heartbeat.

People may turn me away from a game, rarely the game itself.

MERP, Spanish version: the most arid, unimaginative rpg book ever.

Quote from: Imperator;402427As I grow old, I find harder and harder to hate games to the point to say outright 'No' to play them. Running them may be a different question, of course.

Hating is usually a waste of neurons.

There are lots of games I dislike enough that I would not play them unless forced. Golf, bridge, most eurogames, a good number of RPGs, etc. I don't hate these games, I'm just not willing to play them because they aren't my type of game. I'm willing to explain in great detail why I will not play them, however -- especially when I'm talking to someone who just loves them and can't seem to understand why I don't or who tries to tell me they are really just like the games I do like.

Quote from: Lizaur;402723MERP, Spanish version: the most arid, unimaginative rpg book ever.

Dude, I energically disagree with you on that.
PS: Greetings from Barcelona!

Quote from: RandallS;402724There are lots of games I dislike enough that I would not play them unless forced. Golf, bridge, most eurogames, a good number of RPGs, etc. I don't hate these games, I'm just not willing to play them because they aren't my type of game. I'm willing to explain in great detail why I will not play them, however -- especially when I'm talking to someone who just loves them and can't seem to understand why I don't or who tries to tell me they are really just like the games I do like.

Oh, that's OK. It's good everyone has his own preferences.

Hating is an entirely different thing for me.

Quote from: Melan;401918Tunnels&Trolls. Exciting historical document (although Monsters! Monsters! is the more interesting one), but the super-minimalistic rules and tongue in cheek approach are a turnoff. OD&D didn't try to be all-comprehensive, but at least it advocated complex simulation. If I wanted an old school minimal system, I would probably like Advanced Fighting Fantasy more (and Titan is a helluva world guide, especially at the age of twelve).

Some aspects of Gamma World also bother me - again, a bit too tongue in cheek, and lacking a serious mode (this, not this). Axe Mental on the K&K board has proposed that TSR should have done a straightforward AD&D-level game with similar trade dress and all:

That's the science fiction game I am missing grom the old school palette - neither Traveller-like realistic nor GW- or Star Frontiers-like cheese, just "adventurer fantasy" for spaceships and lasers.

Buck Rodgers XXV? It was built on a modified AD&D engine.

And as for me AD&D 1e, but I admit to having had lots of fun with it. Beyond that Champions- we never got past  CG.

Heh...XXVc is still IMO the single best itteration of AD&D to see print.  The settings not half bad in a low key retrostylized transhuman space sorta way.

As far as Rolemaster goes, I often wonder if people were playing the same game I was.  I mean there's a steep learning curve right at the start but once you get what it's doing and why it's all smooth sailing.  I think the single worst thing in the book is the notion that you should total all your bonuses.  Just totalling the ones you actually expect to use makes life much easier.

Personally, my hate list would be KABAL, Timeship, Man, Myth, and Magic, Other Suns, and Daredevils.  But Man Myth and Magic had great maps, and Daredevils had great pulp adventures.  KABAL had squareroots and percentile multiplication in combat.  And no editing whatsoever!

AD&D, either edition.  I had fun with it, to be sure, but mostly in the RP and interacting with my friends (none of which the game system supports), but the system frustrated and confused me at every turn.

Chart...errr...Rolemaster.  Took the most fun part of most games - chargen - and turned it into a boring chore.

Restricting myself to just stuff I owned back in the old days:

* AD&D - the first edition is a clunky mess to me.  If I'm going old school, it'd be with either the BECMI or 2e rules.

* T&T - I liked the solo aspect, but the lighthearted "humor" tone of the book completely turned me off.

* Gamma World 3rd edition - I loved the cover/box art, I loved the idea of the MSH-esque color chart thingy, I loved they moved away from the D&D rules, and I loved the basic concept (particularly the slightly less wacky take on the GW world).  What I didn't love was the mess of epic proportions that were the rule books - clearly they were put together by an insane, blind man who was randomly stapling together notes about a new edition combined with half-included material from old editions.

* Powers and Perils - Dear God, Powers and Perils.  Arguably the ugliest layout of any RPG ever (your average Palladium book looks like a DaVinci next to it).  It also featured horribly over-complicated rules clearly written by a hex and chit wargame author, as well as being so unorganized, it seriously gave Gamma World 3 a run for its money (GW3 still wins for forgetting to include half the rules).

* Traveller 2000 (later called 2000 AD or whatever) - I kept hearing about Traveller and how great it was, so my friends and I got Traveller 2000.  Boy was that not what we wanted.

Quote from: jgants;402758* Traveller 2000 (later called 2000 AD or whatever) - I kept hearing about Traveller and how great it was, so my friends and I got Traveller 2000.  Boy was that not what we wanted.

You mean Traveller: 2300, later called simply 2300 AD or 2300. It was a continuation, story-wise, of Twilight: 2000. I always liked the setting for 2300 a lot, maybe more than Traveller's Imperium. The actual games were so different that it's hard to compare them, but I enjoyed playing the original Traveller much more.

Quote from: David Johansen;402740As far as Rolemaster goes, I often wonder if people were playing the same game I was.  I mean there's a steep learning curve right at the start but once you get what it's doing and why it's all smooth sailing.  I think the single worst thing in the book is the notion that you should total all your bonuses.  Just totalling the ones you actually expect to use makes life much easier.

Same experience here. Rolemaster as being this overly complex monster of a role playing game is a myth, mainly born from people who had an allergy to tables and charts and didn't bother to actually play the game or use a little brain matter in the process (I mean, it's not rocket science to use some bookmarks to refer to the charts quickly, or photocopy only those you use, for instance).

Sure, the character generation can be long. That I agree with. But in actual play, man, that game's working good.

The problem I had with Rolemaster was not the complexity, it was the tedium.  The initial calculations of chargen required quite a few small math problems; it's not that I couldn't do it, but why would I want to?  One attack often required referencing half a dozen charts - not complex but time consuming.  The extra detail tried to give the impression of realism but the results could be as wonky as much simpler games.  The net result was a slower game that added little in way of realism, immersion, or fun.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;402771You mean Traveller: 2300, later called simply 2300 AD or 2300. It was a continuation, story-wise, of Twilight: 2000. I always liked the setting for 2300 a lot, maybe more than Traveller's Imperium. The actual games were so different that it's hard to compare them, but I enjoyed playing the original Traveller much more.

Right, Traveller 2300 not 2000.  That's the one I meant.

Quote from: jgants;402758* Powers and Perils - Dear God, Powers and Perils.  Arguably the ugliest layout of any RPG ever (your average Palladium book looks like a DaVinci next to it).  It also featured horribly over-complicated rules clearly written by a hex and chit wargame author

The designer is Richard Snider, whose only other design credits (that I can find) are Adventures in Fantasy (with Dave Arneson) and Star Empires (with Brian Blume, Greg "The Great Svenny" Svenson, and John M. Snider).

Quote from: Benoist;402775Same experience here. Rolemaster as being this overly complex monster of a role playing game is a myth, mainly born from people who had an allergy to tables and charts and didn't bother to actually play the game or use a little brain matter in the process (I mean, it's not rocket science to use some bookmarks to refer to the charts quickly, or photocopy only those you use, for instance).

Sure, the character generation can be long. That I agree with. But in actual play, man, that game's working good.

+1

Quote from: Imperator;402725Dude, I energically disagree with you on that.
PS: Greetings from Barcelona!

Let's face it: MERP was Rolemaster's little brother. When I close my eyes and try to remember it I can only see charts upon charts!... and well, yes, the superb illustrations of the master Angus MacBride.

Greetings from sunny Valencia!