You cannot possibly get any worse than Call Of Cthulhu. CoC has had completely unplayable mechanics through at least five editions, so far.
Although, L5R was crap because a Samurai could *never* win a duel against a Shugenja. 7th Sea was crap because an trained soldier could *never* win a fight against an untrained soldier. HotB means that a combat character loses against *a large number of mooks*, but at least he can stand up to a single noncombat character. It's progress!
No I think he's right, it sounds much better to say. A trained soldier could *never* win a fight against a trained soldier because 7th Sea was crap.
See the fight results is a symptom of the crap game, not the other way around. If the soldier won a fight, I'm sure there would still be many other crap features of the game.
The mechanics, based on L5R as they were, had most of the same problems as L5R did. Those problems made focusing on stuff you wanted to be good at *less* effective than just buying pure core stats and bonus things - a trained swordsman will always lose a swordfight with an untrained swordsman because for the cost of training, the untrained swordsman is rolling and keeping more dice in all of his stats, and +1K1 is light-years more effective than the benefits of swordsman school.
Unplayable? The mechanics didn't bother me much at all. I thought the point of the mechanics was the that characters would most likely be eaten or insane at the end of the game. So, fiddling around and rules-lawyering dice seemed a silly impediment slithering tentacle-y doom (and griping about rules was a good way to get head of the line privileges for the most awful fates).
errr... what version of 7th Sea were you playing? I ran a game where, of the PCs, two were Swordsmen (one Montaigne and one Vodacce), another was an Eisen wearing a decent amount of Dracheneisen (who wasn't a Swordsman, but wasn't a slouch in combat either), one Sorcerer (Glamour), and a scholarly type (I think he was a Castillan).
The two Swordsmen and the Eisen never had any problems against mooks or brutes squads (or whatever they were called). Heck, the Eisen once took out an entire brute squad by picking one of them up and hurling him at the rest of them.
A character who bought a Swordsman school paid *so much* that his stats were a full die lower than someone who took the same points and just bought strength, toughness, or other useful things. The trained swordsman would lose against someone who wasn't trained, just bought combat ability, every single time.
I have to disagree. Had a Montaigne using Tout Pre (or however the improvised weapon school was spelled) and he had no problem handling mooks and brutes on his own and the one boss he encountered as part of his Mistaken Identity was a challenge but he dealt with it.
But if you'd ignored the school and just bought higher stats, you would have had a much easier time because you'd have been a much better fighter, is my point.
Don't some schools offer you particular bonuses towards things? I know that the improvised school, depending on the situation, was extremely useful and there's a Castille school that makes mincemeat out of low level bad guys.
Some schools give you bonuses, but those bonuses are never as good as the pure stat die upgrades you could buy instead. A maxed-out school-trained Swordsman will beat a maxed-out untrained brawler, but *nobody gets to max out in any realistic timeframe*.
The real problem we found in play was that the non-Swordsmen constantly trounced enemies that the Swordsmen had trouble with, because they hadn't wasted points "learning to use a weapon", they just spent points being awesome *at everything*.
It's 25 points (35 if you're not the same nationality as the school), but that's not such an insurmountable difference if you build your character well. And, well, let's face it... my players squeezed every character point out of their characters.
But they also used tactics and very descriptive combat (which I had told them at the start would get them some minor bonuses).
I'm with you. I've played CoC across a couple different editions, and never had much of a problem with the mechanics. *shrug* PCs in CoC aren't supposed to stare down Cthulhu.
Of course, I played with people whose characters burned every single tome of forbidden knowledge they came across, because they wanted to keep their Sanity.
That's John Wick for ya ... his stuff LOOKS like fun, but then you actually bite into it, and you get a bad taste in your mouth that it's off. What's more, try to send it back, and Wick will tell you there's something wrong with you.
Your first warning sign is how Wick's logo is twice as big as everyone else's.
7th Sea was fun but has some pretty serious mechanical flaws that you had to work around. As long as you avoid them, it's a great game. Houses Of The Blooded is just plain *neat*, but it's very much a departure from a standard RPG build - you have to walk into it expecting that you're going to play the specific kind of game it's built to play, and that if you want anything else, you should be using a different system.
And I quite like him on general RPG pragmatics: "Why would you play with assholes?" is an important question to ask any group, potentially much more important than "how to you fix X broken stupid mechanic".
If someone publishes one game with serious mechanical flaws, that's one thing. ... But how does Wick have any cred when every game he publishes have bad mechanics?
As for John Wick's anti-asshole articles ... every RP gamer says they hate assholes. (Heck, Steve Jackson Games has bankrolled their last 10 years of their company on "Munchkin" games.) ... But any time Wick writes something pro-active about gaming, he comes off as yet another asshole. He once wrote an article on Champions gaming which was just his gleeful ranting about how he tortured each of his players. And his game-design philosophy has outspokenly been to kill PCs on a regular basis. (L5R isn't flawed -- Wick is on record for saying that since characters died quickly in the CCG, they should die quickly in the RPG!)
RPG design is like computer-game design ... except the entry requirements are even lower, because the RPG doesn't actually have to work mechanically. If we hate computer games for having weak weapons, hordes of boring enemies, and extremely high player mortality ... why don't we hate role-playing games for the same reasons?
how does Wick have any cred when every game he publishes have bad mechanics?
Because they only have "bad mechanics" when you try to use them to play games *they're not built to play*.
There are people who complain that Call Of Cthulhu doesn't let you play immortal gods, and that D&D4 doesn't let you play inkeepers.
These people are stupid.
These people are, in fact, too stupid to live.
It's not that Wick's games have bad mechanics, it's that they have gaping mechanical *holes* if you try to play something the system isn't built to cover - although 7Sea had fewer than L5R, and HotB has fewer still.
And his game-design philosophy has outspokenly been to kill PCs on a regular basis.
Actually, it tends to be that PCs should never feel they can survive without work. Which is different.
(L5R isn't flawed -- Wick is on record for saying that since characters died quickly in the CCG, they should die quickly in the RPG!) L5R *is* flawed, but the deadliness is not a flaw. The game is MEANT to be deadly. The problem is that there are places where it's deadly *in the wrong ways* - for example, a starting-character Shugenja *cannot* lose a duel with a starting-character Samurai, and the starting-character Shugenja *cannot* fail to kill the Samurai. The "fix" for this is RP-based: Shugenja "shouldn't" duel Samurai, and a Samurai *will* kill a Shugenja in a fair fight.
This is a mechanics flaw, exposed as soon as you leave the game setting.
The idea that characters in the game should die easily and commonly? Not a mechanical flaw.
If we hate computer games for having weak weapons, hordes of boring enemies, and extremely high player mortality ... why don't we hate role-playing games for the same reasons?
I don't know who "we" is, but I suspect Roguelikes are the most popular computer game in human history, possibly, ONLY POSSIBLY, eclipsed by World Of Warcraft.
And both Nethack (the biggest Roguelike) and World Of Warcraft (the biggest WoW-alike) are DEFINED by their hordes of boring enemies, repetitive gameplay, and extremely high player mortality. WoW and clones simply don't have death be a permanent injury.
I suspect your problem with John Wick's products is not the same as mine. I suspect you dislike his games because you're trying to use them for something they were never intended to do - kind of like trying to run an role-playing game with D20, or a fast-paced action game with D20, or an interesting or fun game with d20. The system isn't intended to cover that, so it's not surprising that it faiols to do so.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 04:06 am (UTC)Any mechanic that man gets anywhere near turns to diarrhea.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 04:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 04:13 am (UTC)Although, L5R was crap because a Samurai could *never* win a duel against a Shugenja. 7th Sea was crap because an trained soldier could *never* win a fight against an untrained soldier. HotB means that a combat character loses against *a large number of mooks*, but at least he can stand up to a single noncombat character. It's progress!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 04:25 am (UTC)I think you got this backwards.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 04:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 05:10 am (UTC)A trained soldier could *never* win a fight against a trained soldier because 7th Sea was crap.
See the fight results is a symptom of the crap game, not the other way around. If the soldier won a fight, I'm sure there would still be many other crap features of the game.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 05:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 11:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 05:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 05:45 am (UTC)The two Swordsmen and the Eisen never had any problems against mooks or brutes squads (or whatever they were called). Heck, the Eisen once took out an entire brute squad by picking one of them up and hurling him at the rest of them.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 11:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 03:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 05:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 05:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 09:14 pm (UTC)The real problem we found in play was that the non-Swordsmen constantly trounced enemies that the Swordsmen had trouble with, because they hadn't wasted points "learning to use a weapon", they just spent points being awesome *at everything*.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 04:06 pm (UTC)But they also used tactics and very descriptive combat (which I had told them at the start would get them some minor bonuses).
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 02:10 pm (UTC)> completely unplayable mechanics through at least five editions, so far.
Hasn't.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 04:08 pm (UTC)Of course, I played with people whose characters burned every single tome of forbidden knowledge they came across, because they wanted to keep their Sanity.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 05:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 05:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 06:09 am (UTC)otoh, I've been running Masks of Nyarlathotep with nwod Werewolves as protagonists and wondering how on earth humans survive more than 2 sessions.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-24 03:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-25 06:33 pm (UTC)Your first warning sign is how Wick's logo is twice as big as everyone else's.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-25 07:09 pm (UTC)And I quite like him on general RPG pragmatics: "Why would you play with assholes?" is an important question to ask any group, potentially much more important than "how to you fix X broken stupid mechanic".
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-01 01:17 am (UTC)As for John Wick's anti-asshole articles ... every RP gamer says they hate assholes. (Heck, Steve Jackson Games has bankrolled their last 10 years of their company on "Munchkin" games.) ... But any time Wick writes something pro-active about gaming, he comes off as yet another asshole. He once wrote an article on Champions gaming which was just his gleeful ranting about how he tortured each of his players. And his game-design philosophy has outspokenly been to kill PCs on a regular basis. (L5R isn't flawed -- Wick is on record for saying that since characters died quickly in the CCG, they should die quickly in the RPG!)
RPG design is like computer-game design ... except the entry requirements are even lower, because the RPG doesn't actually have to work mechanically. If we hate computer games for having weak weapons, hordes of boring enemies, and extremely high player mortality ... why don't we hate role-playing games for the same reasons?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-01 01:35 am (UTC)Because they only have "bad mechanics" when you try to use them to play games *they're not built to play*.
There are people who complain that Call Of Cthulhu doesn't let you play immortal gods, and that D&D4 doesn't let you play inkeepers.
These people are stupid.
These people are, in fact, too stupid to live.
It's not that Wick's games have bad mechanics, it's that they have gaping mechanical *holes* if you try to play something the system isn't built to cover - although 7Sea had fewer than L5R, and HotB has fewer still.
And his game-design philosophy has outspokenly been to kill PCs on a regular basis.
Actually, it tends to be that PCs should never feel they can survive without work. Which is different.
(L5R isn't flawed -- Wick is on record for saying that since characters died quickly in the CCG, they should die quickly in the RPG!)
L5R *is* flawed, but the deadliness is not a flaw. The game is MEANT to be deadly. The problem is that there are places where it's deadly *in the wrong ways* - for example, a starting-character Shugenja *cannot* lose a duel with a starting-character Samurai, and the starting-character Shugenja *cannot* fail to kill the Samurai. The "fix" for this is RP-based: Shugenja "shouldn't" duel Samurai, and a Samurai *will* kill a Shugenja in a fair fight.
This is a mechanics flaw, exposed as soon as you leave the game setting.
The idea that characters in the game should die easily and commonly? Not a mechanical flaw.
If we hate computer games for having weak weapons, hordes of boring enemies, and extremely high player mortality ... why don't we hate role-playing games for the same reasons?
I don't know who "we" is, but I suspect Roguelikes are the most popular computer game in human history, possibly, ONLY POSSIBLY, eclipsed by World Of Warcraft.
And both Nethack (the biggest Roguelike) and World Of Warcraft (the biggest WoW-alike) are DEFINED by their hordes of boring enemies, repetitive gameplay, and extremely high player mortality. WoW and clones simply don't have death be a permanent injury.
I suspect your problem with John Wick's products is not the same as mine. I suspect you dislike his games because you're trying to use them for something they were never intended to do - kind of like trying to run an role-playing game with D20, or a fast-paced action game with D20, or an interesting or fun game with d20. The system isn't intended to cover that, so it's not surprising that it faiols to do so.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-01 11:27 pm (UTC)I need a video clip of Margaret Hamilton screeching, "How about a little fire, Scarecrow?" for situations when someone abuses a straw man like this.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-02 12:01 am (UTC)Those are TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
PS: D20 sucks. D20 games suck. At best, you can have a D20 game where it only *mostly* gets in the way of having a good time, *most* of the time.