Are any RPGs actually good?

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

Good being subjective of course. This forum is great for critizing games in a more detailed and thorough light than many others. However, it almost begs the question (not trolling) does the den here actually consider any RPGs actually "good"?

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

[Kaelik]

Good being subjective of course. This forum is great for critizing games in a more detailed and thorough light than many others. However, it almost begs the question (not trolling) does the den here actually consider any RPGs actually "good"?

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

I don't think that's a good definition, because for example, D&D has some mechanics that do what the are supposed to do, but in general a lot of the mechanics don't do what they are "supposed" to do, because they are supposed to great a game that is way shittier, and they only accidentally created a lot of the good parts of the game.

[PhoneLobster]

Sometimes it feels like the war on criticism is over and criticism lost.

[spongeknight]

Uh, "The Den" doesn't think any games are good because we are a very, very small community with very different tastes. There's seriously like less than 50 of us who post with any kind of regularity on here, and all of us like different things.

[Daniel]

It also doesn't help that commercial success has relatively little to do with good rules design and this place has a focus on designing good rules.
Ars Magica, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon and Vampire the Masquerade are all great rpg classics. All of them succeed because of a great 'high concept', some good fluff and rules that are good enough in key places to make it work. From a rules wanker perspective all these games are deeply flawed.

Frank reviewed Ars Magica and made a strong case that it's high concept (you play a commune of wizards in early 13th century Europe that has the laws of nature that medieval people thought it had) is impossible to do rules wise.
Vampire (all of the classic WoD games really) are no fun at all if played the way you were supposed to play them.

Lots of role playing games succeed despite massive flaws.

[Dogbert]

The Den reaching a consensus is perhaps impossible, but that's also a reason why this place is good. The fact that every game is hated by at least one poster guarantees there are no echo chambers.

It would be easier to ask for games hated by the consensus. On that, you will find at least one or two unanimous choices.

[Grek]

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

[Whipstitch]

Sometimes it feels like the war on criticism is over and criticism lost.

+1

Criticism of RPGs is especially contentious because a lot of the things that are enjoyable while you're dicking around by yourself and prepping for games are actually kind of a cumbersome pain in the ass when it comes time to sit down and play with other people.

For example, look at Shadowrun's goofy fetish for fiddly guns, vehicles and spy gear. On the one hand, having a list of gear as long as your arm is shit terrible in terms of getting a full group organized and ready to play in a timely manner. On the other hand, having crap like canon megacorp logos and product lines helps make it so things can look and feel fleshed out in a way that you simply won't get with a more generic system. That means that even if you more or less approve of the Big List approach to equipment there's still room for discussion about where the sweet spot lies between rules lite and decadent chargen porn.

[Longes]

It also doesn't help that commercial success has relatively little to do with good rules design and this place has a focus on designing good rules.
Ars Magica, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon and Vampire the Masquerade are all great rpg classics. All of them succeed because of a great 'high concept', some good fluff and rules that are good enough in key places to make it work. From a rules wanker perspective all these games are deeply flawed.

Frank reviewed Ars Magica and made a strong case that it's high concept (you play a commune of wizards in early 13th century Europe that has the laws of nature that medieval people thought it had) is impossible to do rules wise.
Vampire (all of the classic WoD games really) are no fun at all if played the way you were supposed to play them.

Lots of role playing games succeed despite massive flaws.

Now, I like all four games you mentioned, and WoD is in fact my prefered RPG system. But saying that Ars Magica and Pendragon are "great rpg classics" and "succeeded" is a joke.

[OgreBattle]

RIFTS

[Aryxbez]

It's not that the Den HATES ALL GAMES, HATES ALL RPGS. It's moreso we don't look back (nor forward) at games we do care about with rose-tinted beer goggles like so many do. We understand there are problems with the games that we like, and therefore we discuss those, and how can improve them for future RPG's (or the ones people want to play now). Course there can be some vitriol when people are designing rules in 2015 that look like they belong something from 15-30+ years ago. That's inexcusable, even for pre-existing games, people should be researching and seeking to learn designs that fit the more Modern designs of this decade.

Albeit I suppose the problem is in finding those problems, and how they were solved back then. I've seen a fair bit of that here in Frank's reviews how 80's solved some things, but feel like if that could be better cataloged...future designers could take from that to improve their own work.

[Daniel]

Somebody on the Den disagreed with me on a side issue, I better start calling him a child molester...

On a more serious note. Any rpg that manages to survive long enough to get to 5 editions is probably a great success, by the low standards of the industry. And any game that does something innovative that creates an own lasting fan base is I would say a classic.


Maybe terms like classic and success are somewhat subjective.

[Username17]

Somebody on the Den disagreed with me on a side issue, I better start calling him a child molester...

On a more serious note. Any rpg that manages to survive long enough to get to 5 editions is probably a great success, by the low (?) standards of the industry. And any game that does something innovative that creates an own lasting fan base is I would say a classic.


Maybe terms like classic and success are somewhat subjective.

Number of editions has little to do with anything. Print runs have historically been extremely variable and not enumerated well. AD&D came out with versions of books that had new covers and bonus content without declaring a new edition. Games like Vampire completely overhaul the rules from book to book and pretty much declare new editions when they feel like it.

Ars Magica in particular has gotten new editions primarily when the IP has been traded around like a 1990s highschool mix tape. The second edition was Lion Rampart doing a new printing with "now we have an actual production budget and a new computer." The third edition was "the IP has been sold to White Wolf, time for a new edition." The fourth edition was "the IP has been sold to Atlas Games, time for a new edition scraped together out of the WotC produced material that they made when they bought the IP but never got around to actually making an edition out of." And the fifth edition was "Atlas Games has owned this IP for a while, how about we make something that's actually ours, rather than using a bunch of WotC and White Wolf stuff that we don't really own?"

It has literally been 26 years since someone made an edition of Ars Magica for reasons other than "We own this IP now, we should probably do something with it so we don't lose the trademarks." Ars Magica continues to get stuff printed for it for the same reason and to the same extent as how Judomaster keeps getting published by DC since they acquired the IP from Charlton Comics.

Ars Magica is a hot mess, and while it could have presented their troupe system as a way to overthrow the hegemony of 2nd Edition AD&D back in the 90s, they didn't. Instead the people involved decided to go a different route and challenge D&D from the pretentiousness side with Vampire. And since they actually won for a few years, I can't say they were wrong. Anything that Ars Magica could have been is all just hypotheticals. What it actually is now is abandonware that got passed around and kept in print by some obsessive fans. Ars Magica today is only one step above Onyx Path material.

-Username17

[kzt]

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

I've enjoyed playing games with horrible rules because of the people and their attitude. If everyone wants to have fun, isn't a jerk, and is willing to play along, you are likely to have a good time despite the game.

[Daniel]

Somebody on the Den disagreed with me on a side issue, I better start calling him a child molester...

On a more serious note. Any rpg that manages to survive long enough to get to 5 editions is probably a great success, by the low (?) standards of the industry. And any game that does something innovative that creates an own lasting fan base is I would say a classic.


Maybe terms like classic and success are somewhat subjective.

Lots of gibbering and howling at the moon.

-Username17

What you say is absolutely true. Pendragon is probably an even better example. It jumped from 1st to third edition without ever releasing a 2nd one.
Even so, I confidently claim both Ars and Pendragon as great successes and classics 'cause the standards in rpg land are truly fucking low...

Hell Onyx Path is not a joke, it is successful indy publisher.

[Stahlseele]

What we like and what we think is good in both Fluff and Crunch does not have to have anything to do with each other either.
I LOVE Shadowrun 3rd Edition for example, but i still am the first to admit that the rules are bad at best and utterly useless at worst.
And i love the idea of a Battletech RPG, but the rules for THAT are utterly useles AT BEST.
Here, you will never get a clear and simple answer like:"This RPG is good. Both in setting and Rules" from more than one person. I think the closest we got was an OSSR about Earthdawn . .
Usually it is somebody telling you about their favourite RPG and their reasons for loving it and 5 seconds later somebody else coming in and giving you good arguments about why they are wrong.

[erik]

[Tannhäuser]

What you say is absolutely true. Pendragon is probably an even better example. It jumped from 1st to third edition without ever releasing a 2nd one.
Even so, I confidently claim both Ars and Pendragon as great successes and classics 'cause the standards in rpg land are truly fucking low...

Hell Onyx Path is not a joke, it is successful indy publisher.

I'm not sure I'd agree with any of those things as being "great successes". D&D in various editions, has obviously been wildly popular, even as a mainstream franchise. Even Vampire spawned a WWF wrestler, an Aaron Spelling tv show, several popular video games and tie-in card-games. Onyx Path has published games whose individual sales could be considered rounding errors for Vampire at its peak. Trying to drag other games down to the same low standard and claiming that they all are pretty popular isn't much of a defense.

RPGs can be as successful to the same standards as any franchise based on a fictional work, and should be judged as successes if they meet that standard. That other games haven't is more a reinstatement of Sturgeon's law than some indication of the unmarketability of RPGs.

[Daniel]

For the record, using a certain mainstream hobby standard of success and not a niche hobby standard like I was, no RPG was ever a success except for certain editions of D&D and certain editions of Vampire The Masquerade...

Well there is DSA, has been around since the mid-eighties, spawned some computer games, was published by a mainstream board games company a lot of the time, translated in a number languages, boasted sales figures good enough to still be sold in mainstream toy stores in the mid nineties, long after D&D was banished to the comic book stores.

I suspect some people here would commit seppuku before admitting that it also was (using mainstream hobby standards) a success.

[Username17]

Dark Eye was a mainstream success in Germany. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay was a mainstream success in the United Kingdom. I hear that there was some regional monster hit in Japan (Sword World?) but I have a harder time reading Japanese stories about it, so I can't tell.

I'm honestly not sure how big a game has to be to qualify as a mainstream success in Spain, but I suspect Anima qualifies. People who are more familiar with Brasil can tell me if Tormenta qualifies. In Czech Republic, Dračí Doupě is a household word.

If you look at smaller regional markets like Germany and the United Kingdom, lots of games have achieved regional mainstream success. There seems to be room for about one or two games that are mainstream successes simply because they are what's available. They don't even have to be good, just get good distribution and be written in the local language.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is a tire fire. Well, a tyre fire. But in the 80s and 90s, Games Workshop fucking owned all the hobby stores on the island, so that's the game that particular flavor of white people played. DSA is embarrassing and shitty even by 1980s fantasy heartbreaker standards. But it was in German and it was there, so that's what German people played.

It takes a clever marketing campaign and a huge product line and years of effort to displace the number one game in whatever region you are competing in (see: Vampire beating D&D in the late 90s). But such is the appetite for RPGs that you can be an unqualified success in your region just by being alone on the shelf (see: Dračí Doupě).

-Username17

[Daniel]

Wasn't Aquelarre the big Spanish rpg success? Or is that more a case of being a rpgnet darling, sort of being the famous Spanish game in the eyes of the English language internet.

[Daniel]

If you look at smaller regional markets like Germany and the United Kingdom, lots of games have achieved regional mainstream success. There seems to be room for about one or two games that are mainstream successes simply because they are what's available. They don't even have to be good, just get good distribution and be written in the local language.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is a tire fire. Well, a tyre fire. But in the 80s and 90s, Games Workshop fucking owned all the hobby stores on the island, so that's the game that particular flavor of white people played. DSA is embarrassing and shitty even by 1980s fantasy heartbreaker standards. But it was in German and it was there, so that's what German people played.



-Username17

That makes Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (1st edition) and Advanced Fighting Fantasy (published by Penguin and sold in mainstream bookstores) the 80's regional success stories in the UK?

I ran a fun* WFRP 2nd edition campaign that lasted several years, I'm not sure I've could have done that using WFRP 1st without ignoring most of the rules.



*That is using a mainstream definition of fun, not an it wasn't torture so it was good lowered bar definition of fun.

[Mistborn]

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.

Rest assured your favorite RPG is indeed shit but what seperates us making that judgement from the crowd is not just that we are negative but we actually have consistent heuristic by which RPGs can be judged(to be shit). Our issue with the rest of the fandom is not that they have the a different herusitic but rather they reject the idea of heristics all together. When we say for example that the math in [game] doesn't work we basically never get a reasoned counter argument. Instead we get people who are offended by the very idea that someone would apply math to their beloved game.

Fundamentally though our standards are not all that rigorous. What we ask is for ever rule to be a concrete improvement over MTP. We'd also like to see those rules accept a decent spread of genera appropriate inputs and produce equally genera appropriate outputs in some transparent way but that stuff is legitimately difficult.

The problem is that most RPG fans on the various forums are so bound to their headcannons and stealth MTP judgments that they are unable to acknowledge what the rules they are supposedly playing with actually say. They by and large are not interested in clear and coherent rules in the first place because what they want isn't actually consistent. Instead of a cooperative story telling game what the actually want is a novel one that they write but they for some reason can't admit that even to themselves.

At the end of the day we post on TGD not because we hate RPGs but because the rest of the RPG fandom so far up their own dunning kruger and cognitive dissonance

[PhoneLobster]

At the end of the day we post on TGD not because we hate RPGs but because the rest of the RPG fandom so far up their own dunning kruger and cognitive dissonance

God forbid I should agree with Lord Mistborn on anything (though occasionally I do), but basically yeah.

Do you see an abnormal amount of criticism of bad game rules (individual ones and entire RPG rules sets) on the Gaming Den? Why yes, yes you do. But in the end it's only relative.

Because how much criticism of bad game rules do you see on other sites that discus RPGs? Next to none.

Occasionally you'll come across tribal wars like RPGPundit and his crusade against story games and for some reason, minorities, but 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".

I think the gaming den has degenerated to something lesser than it was. I think it's developed it's own forms of unpleasant and counterproductive group think and tribalism. But at it's core at least it still talks about actual game rules and isn't ruled over with the iron fist of an often unspoken but still very strict rule that the actual conclusions all discussions and opinions on those rules reach MUST be positive on pain of permaban.

Even to this day, where the hell else in the insular and highly anti-criticism/anti-rules-analysis online RPG fan community CAN you find forums with the freedom to say "That shit rule that does shit things? Yeah it's shit."?

[Dogbert]

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).