The Gaming Den

Dogbert wrote:

Grek wrote:Name them. I'll bet you I can point to a poster who enjoys whatever game you point at.

Bearworld (and no, Silva doesn't count).

'Sup.

There are people here other than Silva who enjoy Bearworld games for what they are.

---

There's a difference between "Good" and "Enjoyable." And "Successful" is different still.

I enjoy Dungeons & Dragons 3.X, Werewolf the Apocalypse/Demon the Fallen, Rifts and Mutants & Masterminds. I would not call any of them good games, with the possible exception of M&M with the caveat of "for what it is." Successful is yet another matter. D&D3.x was of course probably one of the most successful RPGs. WtA and DtF could be considered successful as parts of WoD overall, but I would never call Demon the Fallen successful on it's own. Rifts was probably successful for what it was (a carbon copy also-ran), at least until The Mysterious Embezzlement(TM).

I honestly don't think there is an objectively good RPG, but I'm no scholar. Mutants and Masterminds is adept at emulating Supers stuff, and a competent point buy game, but that's about all I'll confidently say about it.

The problem with RPGs is that RPGs are composite products, they need good writing, good mathematics, and good game design, and these are three very different skills. Good art helps a lot, but art doesn't make a game better, just more successful/popular. I'd say the closest we've gotten to a game where the three skills are in proper balance is probably After Sundown, but even that has it's problem points and it needs a revision that Frank is understandably not prioritizing (saving lives is way more important than tweaking a game).

The thing is you have to define the parameters for good. Is a good game one you enjoy playing. Is it a game that is mechanically and mathematically rigorous? Does it let you play a loli cat girl ghost maid?

For den parlance, a game that has some rigor in design and play, creates innovations (or at least positive iterations) in mechanics and can be used to create other games is probably "good". That's why 4e was such a hated thing: it was something that iterated, but then went backwards design wise, got increasingly lazy mathematically and utterly failed at creating a style of game other than a low level grid fighter.

Incompetent rules design is surprisingly common in rpg land. And it goes beyond the bad math.
Just try playing a 6 evenings campaign in most d20 variants with casual players and 10th level* characters....
I was going to start something like that using Slaine (d20). Sigh..
After some thought I decided that it will be Slaine (Fate Accelerated) and a lot of Magic Tea Party, Mind Caulk and putting in requests for blowjobs.


*High enough that players can actually have a decent selection of cool special powers to pick from.

Dogbert wrote:

Grek wrote:Name them. I'll bet you I can point to a poster who enjoys whatever game you point at.

Bearworld (and no, Silva doesn't count).

Chamomile and Orion.

PhoneLobster wrote:it is next to impossible to find RPG rules discussion communities that EVER permit members to come to ANY conclusions about the rules they "discus" other than "They are good because all RPG rules are good because it is actually impossible for them to be bad".

Amen to that. The reason why I stayed here. So tired of this 'I can play whatever snowflake I like and there can be no quality discussion' bullshit. There are good and bad games.

Also, isn't the Den a place where you come to read bad stuff about games and just skip the thread about the games you like?

Daniel wrote:Incompetent rules design is surprisingly common in rpg land. And it goes beyond the bad math.

In order to make a 'good' game you have to accomplish several things.

First you have to develop an interesting and compelling setting that accommodates collaborations by small groups as a relevant unit for storylines. There are lots of RPGs that have managed to do this, though obviously different people find different settings various levels of interesting.

Then you have to make your setting work to a certain minimum of internal consistency. This is harder. Lots of fictional settings completely fail at this, and I don't mean just RPGs. The most popular fantasy series of the modern era - Harry Potter - is completely non-functional as a setting there's no way to actually put it together and have it make any sense. Plenty of RPGs fail here too, like RIFTS or Exalted, but the better ones actually do have worlds that function to some level of competency, and this includes many of the settings that have blossomed into vast novel empires.

And then, once you've done that, you have to develop a system of mechanics that is not only consistently playable, but at least approximates that outcomes that would produce the setting you have already formulated. A number of D&D settings fail in the latter section. No many how many times you seed the world with 3.X rules, you cannot produce the Forgotten Realms.

The thing is, most people tend to evaluate RPGs as if they were fantasy settings, based on whichever idea is the most interesting and compelling, and not which one would make the best game. This is hardly unique to RPGs, it happens to video games a lot, where games are regularly praised for having a great pitch or E3 showing and when the game finally releases it breaks down quickly, but you might not notice until you've put it through hard use, and its actually much easier to produce a properly bounded video mechanic because the player inputs are so much more restricted (even most open-world RPGs limit choice to: talk, shoot, utilize McGuffin).

Perfect? No
Good enough? Yes

Grek wrote:

Dogbert wrote:

Grek wrote:Name them. I'll bet you I can point to a poster who enjoys whatever game you point at.

Bearworld (and no, Silva doesn't count).

Chamomile and Orion.

RacialHolyWarTheGame

Not actually a game (too unfinished to be playable).

FATAL

virgil wrote:FATAL

For some really strange values of good.

Lord Mistborn wrote:It may seem to the average RPG that most of what we do can be summed up with this image macro but there's actually a bit more nuance.

This image doesn't load for me, but I'm willing to bet it's an edit of that Hiroyuki's FST manga, with Saiba shouting "You're waifu is shit! SHIIIIIIIIIIT".

Frank, Tormenta is huge here. I really should do a drunken review of this Brazilian classic one of these days.

MGuy wrote:

Grek wrote:

Dogbert wrote:
Bearworld (and no, Silva doesn't count).

Chamomile and Orion.

RacialHolyWarTheGame

Occluded Sun, probably.

Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote:By "good" I mean - decent setting and mechanics that do what they're supposed to do and not get in the way of fun.

The problem with RPGs - which became apparent when the local gaming scene essentially turned almost all-Euro/Ameritrash - is that RPGs are too complex with too little testing to be consistently good.

It takes much more effort to digest a 100+ page rule book and get a group to play it, so RPG sales are going to be much lower than your boardgame with a 5-20 page rule book that sometimes comes with shiny figures. Not having to deal with various mini-games inherent in RPGs - e.g. Home Base Building - also helps narrow a boardgame's focus down to something that can be tested mechanically by a small team with relative consistency.

I think RPGs have simply reached the point where they are in real danger of extinction because of this. There are just too many quicker, more consistent alternatives.

nockermensch wrote:

virgil wrote:FATAL

For some really strange values of good.

I think Virgil meant that as "name someone here who likes this"

I am definitely morbidly curious to attempt playing it.

Nah, they're all bad OP

Great discussion here. I think the point about how RPGs are a composite creation of 3 or 4 different parts that each needs to be done well, in order for a game to "good" and that most RPGs probably only get 2 out of 4 correct.

The other thing is that some people are bothered by different things. I spent a couple weeks seperately going through Rogue Trader and another time, oMage house rules, and in the even deeper past, Ars Magica house rules.

What one group identifies as a problem another group thinks is a feature. I guess as long as people are having fun at the end of the day, that is good.

Yet - I think the point that RPGs are deeply hard to get into for those unitiated is very, very salient. My wife has a friend "J" who played D&D in the earl 1980s and LOVE LOVE LOVED IT. But then the group fell apart, life happened and J never played again until 2008. J loved playing D&D with us, but had a very hard time figuring out how to play the game and "get the world". She also had a very hard time with "the lingo". She never played a video game of any type. Didn't watch fantasy TV shows or Movies, or read fantasy or sci novels. Basic underlying concepts that me and the rest of the group took for granted were just beyond her. She ended up not playing, officially, because her husband (whom did not play) wanted to spend more time with her.

She had a great time actually acting out and roleplaying characters. But making mechanical and sometimes narrative choices was very difficult for her.

I would be curious what it would be like to pay random people off the street money to try out RPGs for a 4 hour introductory session and see if you could actually have a successful session or not.

And with that this thread went from bad already to feels just like a Silva thread bad.

I'm out.

Before the bear world.

Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote:What one group identifies as a problem another group thinks is a feature. I guess as long as people are having fun at the end of the day, that is good.

I think the Den just somewhat overstates the problems of various mechanical features because of the nature and tone of the board. It is quite heavily subjective in reality yes.

I would be curious what it would be like to pay random people off the street money to try out RPGs for a 4 hour introductory session and see if you could actually have a successful session or not.

The local RPG club tried pick-up games in conventions to try and bring in fresh blood. They were all flops and weren't successful at recruiting anyone until the club eventually collapsed.

My impression is that people who play a game need to be drawn in by the setting first - hence they pore through the books on their own without needing anyone to teach them.

But exactly how often will a group of people be drawn in by the exact same hundred page rule book and decide to play together? This is especially worse in the present era when there are again alternatives.

I often see the few remaining guys with the RPG books get drowned out the moment when someone in the gaming group brings in a new boardgame like say, Blood Rage. Everyone else goes ooohs and ahhhs at the minis and would rejoice at how the rulebook is only 10 pages long so they can start playing it now after quickly flipping through the manual instead of just making the characters for the night.

Indeed, in stark contrast to the failure to recruit new RPG players, it's much easier to recruit new boardgamers. I demo'd Heroscape in one boardgame cconvention for instance and not only converted five kids into playing it (none older than 10) in under an hour, but convinced one of their parents to buy a set outright. Hell by the end of it they were correcting each other's rules mistakes without needing me to intervene.

Grek wrote:Name them. I'll bet you I can point to a poster who enjoys whatever game you point at.

4e D&D (Yes, I know its not a real RPG, Skill-Challenges never worked, It's "Kill Orcs" for 30 levels, Padded Sumo, and Item Wishlists are required BS. If can past that and the railroad mentality, I enjoyed DMing for it, it had a simple enough XP/encounter system and lot of its more common monsters were more interesting to run.)

Grek wrote:Name them. I'll bet you I can point to a poster who enjoys whatever game you point at.

RIFTS™

Koumei and I both have a certain fondness for RIFTS, cognizant though we are of its many problems.

Witch Girl Adventures.
Secondary answer: Shadowrun 5e.

Mask_De_H wrote:Witch Girl Adventures.

That isn't universally hated so much as universally ignored. Has anyone here ever heard of Witch Girl Adventures before? Positively or negatively?

Mask_De_H wrote:Secondary answer: Shadowrun 5e.

I'm currently playing a Shadowrun 5e game and enjoying it. The trick is to not play a hacker.