Good Games?

ghost whistler · Post by **ghost whistler** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:33 pm

Since you lot seem critical of most every rpg system ever, what aren't shitty systems and what can we learn from them? Anything?

ghost whistler · Post by **ghost whistler** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:27 pm

31 people without an opinion?

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:58 pm

Let people give their opinion at their own leisure.

Fishing for responses isn't exactly seen as being very polite.

Zaranthan · Post by **Zaranthan** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:01 pm

The den doesn't block web crawlers, all those hits could've been Google scanning the page.

SlyJohnny · Post by **SlyJohnny** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:15 pm

There's been a thread on this topic before, hasn't there?

I mean I can't be assed to search for it, but I vaguely remember.

ghost whistler · Post by **ghost whistler** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:15 pm

SlyJohnny wrote:There's been a thread on this topic before, hasn't there?

I mean I can't be assed to search for it, but I vaguely remember.

I've no idea. If someone can link it i'll take a look.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:17 pm

There's been a lot of discussion of good games and elements of good games on the den over the years. I've learned a lot by reading through the threads.

But it's not exactly reasonable to demand that people provide you a dissertation on why some games are 'good' and what makes them 'good'.

What the Den has been pretty adept at is defining the objectives of a game and considering whether it succeeded or failed in that regard. A game could still be bad even if it achieves its objectives, but good and bad are definitely subjective.

In general, people on this board are fairly pro-3.x. The main reason is that it has a reasonably robust resolution mechanic that empowers players. The Den, in general, is pretty intolerant of vague mechanics that allow the GM to choose any option they want, regardless of the input or success/failure of the players.

Of course, there are a lot of people on the Den, and there is no such thing as complete agreement.

ghost whistler · Post by **ghost whistler** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:46 pm

I never play DnD, least of all 3rd ed. What is so great about that system?

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:48 pm

This topic/thread has come up more than a couple times before- not surprising given how old was bored is. Unfortunately, I can't be assed to look it up right now since I'm using my phone and on a short lunch break. I think the most recent was titled "what do you play" or something like that.

Pixels · Post by **Pixels** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:53 pm

SlyJohnny wrote:There's been a thread on this topic before, hasn't there?

I mean I can't be assed to search for it, but I vaguely remember.

This?

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:58 pm

icyshadowlord wrote:Fishing for responses isn't exactly seen as being very polite.

When the fuck has the Den ever given half a shit about politeness, you barrelsucker?

My honest opinion is that ghost_whistler is a grade-a-gobslotch; the sort of willful ignoramus whose impertinence earned him a slot on my ignore list a long time ago. That he can't be fucked to use search or browse old threads is expected, and his continued references to the rest of the 'den with veiled hostility such as "you people" at times when he pretends to want honest feedback barely ever crosses my moron-o-meter.

SlyJohnny · Post by **SlyJohnny** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:01 pm

That's the one I was thinking of.

Pixels, you are the hero this board needs, but not the one it actually deserves.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:10 pm

@Josh

Yeah, polite might have been the wrong word. I would have gone with intellectual, but that seemed a bit out of place too.

Edit: I also haven't run into this guy before. Then again, I haven't been around for a good while either way.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:21 pm

icyshadowlord wrote: Yeah, polite might have been the wrong word. I would have gone with intellectual, but that seemed a bit out of place too.

We all hate people not on this forum more than we hate each other.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:23 pm

Yeah, I have ghost on ignore but cannot remember why. I'll leave him in the box and just click to read though since I trust past-erik's judgment.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:57 pm

Almost certainly for the L5R LCG thread, in which ghost whistler:

Does the classic troll tactic of demanding specific extra evidence and then using the fact that nobody wants to do extra work to ignore the evidence already provided.
Bitches about ad hominem attacks before going on to accuse Frank of being an rpg.net moderator. Twice. And then calls him, "Trollboy".
All so that he can stubbornly defend AEG's more racist setting decisions.
By repeatedly posting the n word to make a point about how his favourite game is no more racist than Pulp Fiction.
But the thing that seems to have actually pushed you over the line was how he responded to accusations that he was just doing a gish gallop by claiming he doesn't need to read the book being discussed and then quibbling over the definition of the phrase "gish gallop".

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:02 pm

As far as actual good rulesets go, I've been extensively enjoying the Spheres of Power system for Pathfinder. Pathfinder is like a minefield of shitty rules, but SoP is a refreshing ray of sunlight shining down on the cow patties.

spongeknight · Post by **spongeknight** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:32 am

From what I recall The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen- commonly called Munchausen for short- is the best designed rules-light system. It's literally just a prompt for telling a story with mechanical interaction from the other players. If you want a narrative RPG, that's your bag.

brized · Post by **brized** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:22 am

deaddmwalking wrote:In general, people on this board are fairly pro-3.x. The main reason is that it has a reasonably robust resolution mechanic that empowers players. The Den, in general, is pretty intolerant of vague mechanics that allow the GM to choose any option they want, regardless of the input or success/failure of the players.

ghost whistler wrote:I never play DnD, least of all 3rd ed. What is so great about that system?

Aaaand ghost whistler goes on ignore.

phlapjackage · Post by **phlapjackage** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:52 am

Is deaddmwalking going to continue his holy crusade? Or was silva the only worthwhile opponent for him? I can't wait to find out!

ghost whistler · Post by **ghost whistler** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:37 am

What about the Fate system? Is that any good?

Can dice pool systems work?

ghost whistler · Post by **ghost whistler** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:41 am

brized wrote:
deaddmwalking wrote:In general, people on this board are fairly pro-3.x. The main reason is that it has a reasonably robust resolution mechanic that empowers players. The Den, in general, is pretty intolerant of vague mechanics that allow the GM to choose any option they want, regardless of the input or success/failure of the players.

ghost whistler wrote:I never play DnD, least of all 3rd ed. What is so great about that system?
Aaaand ghost whistler goes on ignore.

Well that's your loss.

You've misunderstood my point: i don't dislike DnD at all, i just never play it because i don't run it and neither does anyone else. I've never played 3e and so I don't know how it works.

No need to assume the worst.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:19 pm

Brized was pointing out that I already explained 'what was so great about that system'. Specifically, I said 'it has a reasonably robust mechanic that empowers players'.

But your question seems like an invitation to a worthless time sink of a debate. While not everyone on this board is pro-3.x, the majority are. If you want to learn about why these posters find it 'so great', you could try it, or at least review the rules. They're mostly available for free online via the System Resource Document (SRD).

What about the Fate System? Did you try it? Did you like it?

Dice pool systems can work. Dice pools allow characters to stay on the same number range, but the probabilities can become very difficult to calculate. For example, if you say that every 5+ is a success on a d6, we know you have a 33.3% chance of succeeding if you have 1 die. But what about 6 dice? What if you need 3 successes? They are in some ways more difficult for a designer, and they can also be somewhat difficult at the table - especially if the number of dice in a pool becomes excessive.

D&D doesn't use Dice Pool systems.

ghost whistler · Post by **ghost whistler** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:32 pm

deaddmwalking wrote:Brized was pointing out that I already explained 'what was so great about that system'. Specifically, I said 'it has a reasonably robust mechanic that empowers players'.

But your question seems like an invitation to a worthless time sink of a debate. While not everyone on this board is pro-3.x, the majority are. If you want to learn about why these posters find it 'so great', you could try it, or at least review the rules. They're mostly available for free online via the System Resource Document (SRD).

What about the Fate System? Did you try it? Did you like it?

Dice pool systems can work. Dice pools allow characters to stay on the same number range, but the probabilities can become very difficult to calculate. For example, if you say that every 5+ is a success on a d6, we know you have a 33.3% chance of succeeding if you have 1 die. But what about 6 dice? What if you need 3 successes? They are in some ways more difficult for a designer, and they can also be somewhat difficult at the table - especially if the number of dice in a pool becomes excessive.

D&D doesn't use Dice Pool systems.

I have never tried Fate. Is it any good with or without the weird dice?

If other people like 3e they can tell me, that's the whole point of this thread. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve telling me this discussion is a waste of time.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:01 pm

I'm telling you this discussion is a waste of time because you haven't explained why you're asking. If I like talking about 3.x, perhaps I can write you a book, but will you even read it? Are you considering playing 3.x? Are you looking for design elements for a game that you're building?

If you don't explain what you hope to gain from a discussion of the benefits then the only type of discussion we'll be able to have is 'I sure do like it, yep'.

At that point, we might as well be talking about chocolate. I like chocolate too. It tastes good to me. Most of my friends like chocolate, so it's easy to share. You haven't tried chocolate? I bet you would like it if you did - it tastes good. Are you willing to try chocolate? No? Well, trust me, it's really good.