|
Inspired by this list (I was actually reading the articles, really!), I'm wondering what everyone thought was, in their personal opinion, the most hyped-up RPG they've ever seen or, better yet, played.
Mine is Torg. :D
It's a tie between Alternity and GURPS. Though WoD would be third for me.
Alternity just had way to many rules and checks. For all the promises the store and my gaming group had about it, the game fell very flat. Really having to do three checks just to walk on a path through the woods was overkill. That and any company/system that gets the rights to do Starcraft as a RPG and manages to make it a miserable experience needs to reevalute their game.
GURPS was just way to open ended and very confusing to start with. I think that they have a good idea on their hands but the mechanics were very easy to abuse and sometimes it was damn near impossible to figure out if it would be better to invest in skills or ability scores.
4th ed D&D....probably more due to all the hype about how 'awesome' and 'cool' it was.
Than comes WoD....my thoughts when hearing about it....'Oh cool vampires, werewolves etc.' Than looking at...ok it is tied up in some boring emo metaplot where PCs really don't have a choice...and the mechanics blow up badly when you do mix the different world anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the OP meant most hyped-up that DID NOT DESERVE the hype, so clearly, in my eyes, NOT Pathfinder.
This is going to lead to an RPG war* that all the games can participate in.
*Probably worse than an edition war.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder.
...
What?
Second.
Not because it's bad (it's not), but because what is effectively a fairly minor rehash of an existing system was pretty widely hailed as the tabletop equivalent of the Second Coming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder.
...
What?
Second.
Not because it's bad (it's not), but because what is effectively a fairly minor rehash of an existing system was pretty widely hailed as the tabletop equivalent of the Second Coming.
It is more than that.
Even those of us capable of doing a similar rules rehash don't have time, and for me it is the continued support with adventures more than the rules themselves. The 3.5'ers were in a tight bind, and Paizo came to the rescue. I definitely understand why Paizo coming in as the knight in shining armor meant so much to so many people.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the OP's question every RPG is overrated by someone for one reason or another.
Now I am going to go "read" the article that inspired this thread.
@ the OP:Make bigger links so I don't miss them the first time. :)
FATAL.
Edit: Was answering the thread title, not the OP. Anyway...
+1
GURPS is pretty overblown, though the Infinity Patrol setting is awesome.
Pathfinder.
...
What?
Second.
Not because it's bad (it's not), but because what is effectively a fairly minor rehash of an existing system was pretty widely hailed as the tabletop equivalent of the Second Coming.
+1
|
I am going to say every iteration of D&D except for 3.x/Pathfinder. In general the #1 entry in the RPG field has always been one of the weakest options. The nature of the OGL and the presence of a huge community that loves the product made 3.x/Pathfinder the exception to this rule for me.
Calling Pathfinder a minor rehash of an existing system misses the point. It is an ongoing rehash of a system that has been in progress since the release of 3.0 that thousands of people contribute to out of love for it.
We aint seen hype about this system yet, but it's comin.
Wow. So this is the official "let's take a steaming dump all over someones favorite RPG thread?" Because, yeah I dont see the purpose of this thread otherwise.
And before any of you ask "then what am I doing here?" I figure if people who can't stand Pathfinder can come in and crap on people's cornflakes you should be just fine with me doing the same.
My personal answer? There IS no overrated RPG. Each one is someone's favorite and as long as people are having fun with what they're using to run their games why should we give a rats behind? If we're tired of hearing what a great RPG so and so is, then stay away from the forums that push those games. One of the reasons why I dont hang around EnWorld or RPG.Net anymore is because of the pure HATE ON that they have for games that I like.
I'm going with Army of Darkness RPG
They spent millions of dollars in advertising, and only about 17 people world-wide actually play it.
(Personally, I think the largest active group is in a Chinese fighter-pilot barracks in Fujian province.)
1.
OWNING THIS GAME MAKES YOU SEXY and SMART.
You're in a strange land, with strange people, and you're not thinking too clearly... Oh, and did we forget to mention the army of undead looking to gnaw on your soul!
Contains:
* A guide to character creation, including ready-to-play champions and companions, as well as specs on the Army of Darkness Cast, for your quick-play pleasure.
* A primer on not-so-normal abilities, from magic to supernatural powers.
* Guidelines for bringing the little people together, training them, and pitting them against the forces of evil.
* A rundown on the Army of Darkness setting, places, people, and events.
* Details on the wicked, including evil clones, demons, undead, and other critters.
* Blow-by-blow instructions for creating roleplaying Acts and Features.
BUY IT TODAY !!
2.
I own this book, and rather enjoy it.
The game uses a point-buy system:
The Unisystem uses a point system to create
characters. Basically, you buy different abilities by
spending character points. The better or more powerful
a characteristic is, the more “expensive” it is.
Some negative features, known as Drawbacks, do
not cost any points. Instead, they have a negative
value—by acquiring them, you actually get more
points to buy other things.
Wow. So this is the official "let's take a steaming dump all over someones favorite RPG thread?" Because, yeah I dont see the purpose of this thread otherwise.
And before any of you ask "then what am I doing here?" I figure if people who can't stand Pathfinder can come in and crap on people's cornflakes you should be just fine with me doing the same.
My personal answer? There IS no overrated RPG. Each one is someone's favorite and as long as people are having fun with what they're using to run their games why should we give a rats behind? If we're tired of hearing what a great RPG so and so is, then stay away from the forums that push those games. One of the reasons why I dont hang around EnWorld or RPG.Net anymore is because of the pure HATE ON that they have for games that I like.
Honestly, no one in this thread so far has taken any vicious shots at anything other than FATAL, which is kind of like telling Hitler jokes. Its hard for people to get offended.
In fact, I think its kind of useful to see why people think certain games were overhyped, so as long as people don't get too wound up taking shots at the games they think are overhyped, and especially if they give their reasons, I think this thread can actually be quite instructive.
To actually answer the question, I've been around a while, so a few games jump out at me as having the crown over the years.
When it first came out the original World of Darkness games were a bit overhyped. I know plenty of people that played it and it was very popular. Its nothing about the game system or the setting, it was the wave of "this is real roleplaying" that seemed to accompany the game. I think a lot of it had to do with a backlash against the worst days of 2nd edition, but it felt a wee bit elitist and actually kept me away for a while.
Shadowrun always struck me as strange, because they hype really played up the cyberpunk "any fight could be your last" nature of the game, but it always left we wondering what the point of the "elves, dwarves, orks, and dragons have come back" side of thing was, except to maybe get the system more attention back when there were a lot of cyberpunk games around.
The d20 system was overhyped as well. While the open game license was, indeed, revolutionary, the idea that you could use d20 for every kind of game really didn't work, and led to lots of d20 based games that really would have been much better with their own streamlined systems that made more sense for the genre.
And I have to agree with Pathfinder, with the following explanation. The setting and adventure paths have been great, but where they hype machine really kicks into overdrive is with the rules offerings. From the beginning Pathfinder has never been that great with the fine tuning of its rules, and 3.5 was pretty clunky to begin with. Its not that the system doesn't have it charm, but for a setting with strong storytelling elements, constant rules infusions really just is distracting.
Pathfinder.
...
What?
Second.
Not because it's bad (it's not), but because what is effectively a fairly minor rehash of an existing system was pretty widely hailed as the tabletop equivalent of the Second Coming.
Pretty much this.
Yes, Pathfinder is a minor rehash.
Which is why we have a 338 thread about rules changes between 3.5 and Pathfinder with this post being a magnificently minor summary of changes.
But hey...MINOR.
Pathfinder.
...
What?
Second.
Not because it's bad (it's not), but because what is effectively a fairly minor rehash of an existing system was pretty widely hailed as the tabletop equivalent of the Second Coming.
It is more than that.
Even those of us capable of doing a similar rules rehash don't have time, and for me it is the continued support with adventures more than the rules themselves. The 3.5'ers were in a tight bind, and Paizo came to the rescue. I definitely understand why Paizo coming in as the knight in shining armor meant so much to so many people.
I missed that someone posted this but it needs to be re-iterated. The excitement for Pathfinder wasn't that is was going to be some AWESOME PARADIGM SHIFT IN MODERN GAMING or that it was going to have THE MOST AWESOME RULES EVAR!!!! That hype would have to go to 4E (an even then it wasn't over hyped. It just made a lot of people who didn't like 3.5 happy).
The excitement about Pathfinder was that 3.5 or some variation of it was going to be supported in some way by a publisher that we like and trust. I know there was a vocal subset who hoped that Paizo were going to fix everything that was wrong with 3.5 but to do that any rational person would realize that you wouldn't have 3.5 anymore. You'd have 4E.
Support. That's what the excitement and the hype was about.
Pretty much every version of D&D after 1E/2E, with 4E and Pathfinder being the freshest in my mind. The edition wars speaks for the hype 10 fold on either side. Most of the other major RPG games remain static, or without major revisions. So they come in second place as an after thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uma Thurman. I love Kill Bill as much as the next guy, but I don't see what other guys do in her.
...Oh, games? I don't pay much attention to hype; it has a habit of creating disappointment.
Cyberpunk: Super bad combat system. Wear flak pants or else.
D&D 4E: Nuff said.
Doctor Who: Maybe it was the GM, but the experience was... bad.
Call of Cthulhu. The subject matter is great, but the actual game system is mediocre at best.
|
Cyberpunk: Super bad combat system. Wear flak pants or else.
Yes, super bad because a gunshot wound can kill you...how very realistic in a realistic combat system, in which the point is to NOT get into a firefight if not completely necessary, and that when you do, you better as hell have the odds stacked in you favor (cover, traps, more cover and more traps) if you want to live.
Yes, super bad because a gunshot wound can kill you...how very realistic in a realistic combat system, in which the point is to NOT get into a firefight if not completely necessary, and that when you do, you better as hell have the odds stacked in you favor (cover, traps, more cover and more traps) if you want to live.
We must be talking about different versions of the game (I'm talking about the game that came out in 1990), because if you wore flak pants, you couldn't even be injured with a gunfire. My players certainly didn't "fear" combat in full flak. Some of our combats, the PC (wearing flak armor) stood toe-to-toe with a flak wearing NPC and unloaded their entire clip at each other, but couldn't hurt the other guy! Then... add cybernetics for additional invulnerability. Very unrealistic and lame. I'm not even sure how anyone could think the combat system was realistic.
When you removed the flak pants, you wouldn't go down easily (but at least you could be hurt!). Hurray, enemies that die eventually!
Either way, the combat system was completely unrealistic and silly at times.
I actually really like the cyberpunk genre and setting, but the game system itself sucked. We ended up continuing the campaign but using another system.
We must be talking about different versions of the game (I'm talking about the game that came out in 1990), because if you wore flak pants, you couldn't even be injured with a gunfire. My players certainly didn't "fear" combat in full flak. Some of our combats, the PC (wearing flak armor) stood toe-to-toe with a flak wearing NPC and unloaded their entire clip at each other, but couldn't hurt the other guy! Then... add cybernetics for additional invulnerability. Very unrealistic and lame. I'm not even sure how anyone could think the combat system was realistic.When you removed the flak pants, you wouldn't go down easily (but at least you could be hurt!). Hurray, enemies that die eventually!
Either way, the combat system was completely unrealistic and silly at times.
I actually really like the cyberpunk genre and setting, but the game system itself sucked. We ended up continuing the campaign but using another system.
Methinks perhaps you were running the combat wrong. Flak gear in CP2013/2020/203X will stop small arms fire, but nothing over a .45. And since the stopping power of the armor degrades with every hit (be it a penetrating hit or not), after a few shots it starts looking like swiss cheese, making the concept of "getting behind hard cover" a very appealing concept. Flak gear is not adequate protection in an extended firefight.
Cybernetics are subject to the same rules as armor when it comes to staged penetration and stopping power. And just as with flesh and blood limbs, any amount of damage that removes or otherwise impairs a cybernetic limb calls for an immediate Stun/Shock save - failure of which results in your character sitting around catatonic for a number of turns while the bad guys get to take pot shots at their unmoving meaty parts.
I've run every edition of Cyberpunk, and written for it on a few occasions, so in the words of Peter Tyler: You can trust me on this.
Shadowrun always struck me as strange, because they hype really played up the cyberpunk "any fight could be your last" nature of the game, but it always left we wondering what the point of the "elves, dwarves, orks, and dragons have come back" side of thing was, except to maybe get the system more attention back when there were a lot of cyberpunk games around.
That would be because SR was slated to be released relatively soon after Cyberpunk, unbeknownst to FASA at the time (basically they were working on a Cyberpunk genre game, but didn't know RTG already had one ready to go). According to Mike P, when RTG announced CP2013 at GAMA and he got up and talked about having folks like Walter John Williams provide input and source material (the Hardwired supplement, for instance) in the pipe, there was some teeth gnashing and "Crap, we need to do something to make this different!" from the FASA crowd, and thus ShadowRun became the "D&D with Guns" variant on the theme.
I've always personally thought that Shadowrun was SUPER overhyped, especially for a system in which if you were better, you were guaranteed to succeed - unless you didn't. I believe I have recounted a scenario from an SR game (Over in the "Last Straw" thread) in which I played and found that even at point blank range, emptying my pump-shotgun into the bad guy wasn't enough to kill him... even though realistically it should have been... because despite rolling up and exploding many, many d6's, I "didn't overcome his defenses, after all," at which point he got up and promptly fried us all with a Mana Ball. The skill system was convoluted and confusing ("Is my specialization applicable here? No? How about now?"), combat wasn't lethal enough to make me feel like I was ever in any danger of actually harming the bad guys - but was lethal enough for me to try to avoid it at all costs, and it was impossible to build a character that wasn't a magician or adept or cybered-out-whackjob and still be cool.
I also really wanted to like Brave New World - and I do like the alternate history vibe of the game - but the system just never grabbed me. It was poorly explained, almost impossible to determine how to improve your character once it was generated, and full of "All these Alpha Level heroes are super awesome and we're going to talk about them at length, but you can never ever play one, too bad so sad."
And, yeah. TORG. SO MUCH PRESS in Dragon and other publications, and when I finally got it, not only could you not actually create a character (even the rules for "making a new template" said "copy one of the existing templates and change the name"), but the GM was basically told "Do what you want, the players can't ever change the story - even if they think they can."
Not fun. Not fun at all.
I also really wanted to like Brave New World - and I do like the alternate history vibe of the game - but the system just never grabbed me. It was poorly explained, almost impossible to determine how to improve your character once it was generated, and full of "All these Alpha Level heroes are super awesome and we're going to talk about them at length, but you can never ever play one, too bad so sad."
Being a big fan of Brave New World....they did reveal the metaplot though out the books...and the Alpha where going to explained on what happens to Alphas and how to play one...unfortunaly the game was not popular enough and they ditched it. But do remember there was no Alphas out there...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exalted. I absolutely loved the setting and mood (bought pretty much everything of the first edition), but the game system is/was less than mediocre.
In a couple of instances it said blatantly "please use this option with discretion, or you'll end up rolling a bucketload of dice, unbalancing down the game". Bleh.
Call of Cthulhu. The subject matter is great, but the actual game system is mediocre at best.
This. About a BAZILLION times. Although I must admit my bad experiences with the game may have put a bad taste in my mouth. Still, a game where actually taking action to defend yourself is a bad idea, passive encourages metagaming and so many of the players actively encourage betraying PCs....