Troika is Trash

Over in an RPG-focused group on Facebook, someone asked about a slew of games, one of which was Mork Borg. I posted my very in-depth review, and among the various conversations that trickled in, someone brought up Troika. Well, most of the games were brought up at one point or another, but Troika stood out because someone claimed that it was similar to both Spelljammer and Planescape.

I don’t really care for and know much about the former (D&D in fantasy space, I suppose), but I did play a lot of the latter in the 90s, and while I haven’t used the books in decades for anything beyond some ideas for other stuff I’ve worked on, I decided to check it out.

Not because I wanted to see how someone else might take the concept of ubiquitous planar travel and expand on it, rework it, give it some sort of innovative twist. Oh no, no no no. Just look at the cover:


Just look at it. Lazy. Sloppy. Amateur. Worse, it only serves to convey a lack of vision. Of creativity. Not merely a lack of passion, but caring in general. Seeing the entirety of the cover doesn’t help, either:


Complete RPG my ass.

What’s with the guy on the left? What’s he doing? Whistling? What’s with this arms? See how stunted they are? Is he wearing scale armor? Why are all the scales different colors? Why does it barely go down to his stomach? What’s with the noodles coming out of his head?

And the thing next to him: see the right hand? Look how big and meaty is is compared to everything else? Why is the sword shaped like that? And then you have the robot leading them: what is it doing? Are they supposed to be sneaking? Is the robot jumping? 

If you were to just see that picture, what would you assume the game is about? Lumpy, ugly things talking to stupidly designed robots?

I’ve read the book, so I know what it’s about. Or rather, what it was supposed to be about. What it could have been about. But I knew what I was getting into from the cover alone: pretentious, gimmicky, postmodern trash shoveled out by a lazy, untalented narcissist that really loves the phrase "humpbacked sky".

I’m not sure whether it disappointed me. Not because it's bad. I knew it would be, but because I'm not sure whether it exceeded my lack of expectations.

First off, it's not like either Spelljammer or Planescape. It mentions portals, and crystal spheres, and "golden-sailed barges", but they are never described in any capacity. How to the portals work? What do they look like? Do they need "keys", as in Planescape?

Up to you.

How big are the "golden-sailed barges"? How much do they cost? How durable are they? How fast do they travel?

Also entirely up to you.

My charitable assumption would be that whoever said that has never played in either campaign settings, and at best heard about them from a friend of a friend, and assumed that Spelljammer only mentioned the magical flying ships, but never detailed them, and the same goes for Planescape and portals. But those campaign settings did, in extensive detail.

Troika just tosses the terms about, not caring if the readers would want to know the basics. Or perhaps the author knows his audience, that they don't really give a fuck, or are so stupid that they won't even realize that some very, very obvious questions go unanswered. Or maybe he knows that they aren't going to play it, anyway, and just churn out equally awful adventures, supplements, and pointlessly derivative "hacks".

Speaking of hacks, I didn't know at first that this is a rip-off of Fighting Fantasy, a series of choose your own adventure books that actually features a combat mechanic and an inventory. I can only imagine that the author settled on this because d20 has been overdone, and in so many insipid iterations, and there was no way he could compete. That and because he didn't want to put in too much work, despite actual roleplaying games permitting actual freedom and creativity.

Not to say you couldn't. You could take the base mechanic--largely roll-under 2d6--and flesh it out, ensure that it can survive player contact, but unsurpringly that's not what happened here. Sure, it tells you how to hit things, how to inflict damage, what to do if something tries to hit you (and succeeds), but what if you want to, say, buy some food? Adventurer's gotta eat, right?

Well, maybe not, as while the effects of eating food are described--by which I mean lifted from Fighting Fantasy--their cost is not. Likewise for the effects of hunger and starvation. So, really, by the book food just serves to heal you an arbitrary three times per day (Fighting Fantasy differs in that there is no per-day limit). Good to know, I guess.

Maybe you want to buy a donkey or horse to carry your...well, I suppose starting gear, as there are no tables for treasure. The term treasure is written four times throughout the entire book (less than "humpbacked sky"), but the only actual example is in the godawful adventure shoehorned in the back, where you can attempt to steal a bauble worth 2d6 pence.

Just as well: some of the "classes" can start with one, but name aside there is no cost, description, or statistics for any pack animal.

There's a page and a half devoted to gear (a quarter page is eaten up by trash art), but none of it is essential, and none of it has a price. Knuckle dice are made from the knuckle bones of goblins, and "make excellent two sided dice" but fuck if the book tells you the cost, and it's not like anyone needed to know how much a torch costs. Or what it does.

Oh, but there's a tea set, which grants +1 Etiquette when you sit with something and try to impress them. Again, no price, but surely that makes up for not even mentioning rope, rations, lanterns, oil, you know, all that "normal", not lol-so-random stuff adventurers would actually need cart along.

Purely for the sake of being thorough, might as well go through character generation, such as it is.

To create a character you roll for several stats, record some equipment that isn't explained, and then roll on a background table that doesn’t exist. Instead of a twenty-sider, or even a percentile, it goes with a gimmicky “d66” thing, where you roll 2d6, with one being the ones and the other beings the tens, so really there are only 37 try-hard results.

None of them are interesting, or possess mechanics that support the flavor. For example, there's the Ardent Giant of Corda. You’re a giant, I suppose, though there’s no indication of how big you are, and what benefits and drawbacks your size affords. You start with a star map though, which lets you tell where a given portal goes assuming you pass the requisite skill check.

This sounds more useful than it is, because as has been mentioned nothing about portals are explained or described. So, have fun with that.

The next background is Befouler of Ponds. You are supposed to minister ponds for an unexplained Toad God, so no idea why you would go anywhere, but you can. You can befoul no ponds at all and nothing bad happens. In fact, you could actively clean a pond, wiping out any insects, frogs, toads, etc, and nothing bad would happen. It's not like you have any spells or special abilities that could be revoked.

You start with smelly robes that make it easy to sneak in swamps, harder elsewhere, but you can just take them off so there’s really no downside. For some reason your wooden ladle is equally as effective as a mace. I think this is just here to make easily impressed dumbasses go "Oh, wow, a ladle as a mace! Oh man can you imagine that!" You can drink stagnant liquid without getting sick, something that has never, ever come up in my 20+ years of gaming.

Burglar is next on the list. Your only background-specific ability is that you can test your Luck to “find and get in with the local criminal underbelly”. If one exists, of course. So, no need to roleplay. Just roll Luck. Like a lazy DM letting you try a single Charisma-based check in an actual RPG to find and buddy up with a thieves guild.

Of course, you might be a Cacogen, which has no unique-if-underwhelming feature. Just some gear and skills that anyone could have, including Golden Barge Pilot. You know, if you find one. Then you can roll for...what, exactly? What does a failed pilot check mean? Do you just not go anywhere? Run into something? Is there a lot of stuff between the crystal spheres for you to crash into? How long does it take to travel from sphere to sphere? Does it matter? There's no random encounter table, or drawbacks for not eating food.

Here's the entire page for it:


This is all classes, mind you. This is all that goes into them. This is what you're paying for: bad art, a gear and skill list, and flowery, pretentious description. 

The last one I’ll touch on is the Chaos Champion, so-called because once per day (gotta love those arbitrary, nonsense limitations) you can try call upon your patron. You have to roll three 6s on 3d6, so good luck with that, and it’s entirely up to the GM to determine the results. The best part is? There’s no requirement that you even need to ever do anything to benefit your patron in any way. It’s pure lip service, like everything millennial pretend to care about.

Imagine if Dungeons & Dragons phoned it in this blatantly. Imagine you had to roll for your class, but the only difference between a fighter and rogue is gear. Gear that the rogue could just as easily get (assuming there was an actual equipment list and treasure to be had, of course). But then imagine that the rogue gets a largely useless ability on the side. And then imagine that the only difference between the fighter, rogue, and cleric is that the cleric can try to “call upon” his god once per day, albeit with a ridiculously low chance of success.

Two are at least marginally better than the others, but frankly they all suck. You don’t need to pay someone to come up with such pathetic concepts like the monkeymonger, who is basically a completely normal guy that starts with 1d6 monkeys. He is objectively inferior to any actual class from an actually complete role-playing game that buys at least one monkey before the game starts.

This is not the bare minimum. The bare minimum is to set it up so that every class, concept, background, archetype, whatever the fuck you want to call it, all of them have something meaningful that differentiates them from the others. Something that can't simply be picked or bought.

Even if you give the fighter +1 to hit, reflecting skill with weapons, the thief +1 to steal, the cleric a once per day heal, and a wizard a once per day +1 to, well, anything, reflecting the I guess broad utility of his magic, that would still be utterly fucking pathetic, because those are so barebones that anyone could easily conceive of them.

But it would still be better than Troika

Really though, after trash like Mork Bog and Sharp Spells I’m not surprised. This is about the quality I’d expected: swaths of white space, post modern art, and pointless, stupid mechanics blatantly ripped off from a choose your own adventure book series. All to fuel some so-called designer’s ego.

A bunch of pages later and we arrive at Rules. I know I’m at Rules because in the upper left-hand cover it just says The Rules, with absolutely no visual cue that you’ve transition from one section to another.

Here we learn that you only ever roll d6s, usually 2d6. The gimmick here is that you want to Roll Under, which isn’t accurate because you can also succeed by rolling the target number. The stupid part, well, the other stupid part, is that you might have to Roll Versus, in which case you and an opponent roll 2d6, add modifiers, and try to roll higher than the other.

Stamina is your hit points. It doesn’t tell you how combat works until much later, but going to 0 Stamina means that you either die randomly during combat, or some undefined length of time out of combat: it just says “your friends have one opportunity to Heal you”, but doesn’t explain what this means: a few seconds? A minute? A few minutes?

You regain 2d6 Stamina by resting, or 1d6 by eating something. So...someone is dying? Eat a sandwhich. Going off of Skyrim logic, here. Well, not quite, as I mentioned before you can arbitrarily only eat three things a day to heal. Why so? If you’re going to permit utterly nonsense mechanics, why not go all the way?

When combat breaks out you “assemble the stack”, which is also misleading because you really throw tokens or something into a bag or other container, and then draw them out randomly to see who goes when. Characters get two tokens, monsters get equal to their Initiative stat. There’s also an end of round token, meaning rounds taken a random amount of time. Doesn’t make any sense, but then neither does gobbling down a pie to somehow heal your wounds.

The retarded rationale is that a randomized Turn length adds a “degree of uncertainty”, where you never know how much time you have left. What makes it somehow stupider is that goblins have “few” Tokens because they are cowardly, while dragons have many because they know what they want.

Even though they could just not act for one or more rounds. Unlikely, but possible. And even if players know what they want, they just get two. They’re just slightly less cowardly and uncertain than goblins, I guess. All of them. 

The encumbrance system is basically the same dumbass design that’s been done to death, where you can only carry x items, in this case twelve. Would you be surprised that “small items” only take up one slot, unless you have a lot, and that what counts as a lot is up to the group? What about “large items” taking up two slots? It’s just worse because this value cannot be changed: doesn’t matter if you’re a human or giant, everyone gets twelve slots.

Oh but it’s not done, yet. As part of a tremendously retarded rules gimmick, the order you write them on the list determines also how easy they are to get, because the game presumes that for no discernible reason your character just somehow stacks everything in one or more packs (even if you don't own any). And that it is impossible to put two items on the same "layer" when packing anything.

Rigging stuff on belts, so it’s easy to get? Nope. Using scabbards? Come on, that’s sooo standard role-playing game logic. In Troika we just dump everything in a pack (which isn't described anywhere in the book), and it magically gets arranged in a specific top-down order. Even if the stuff you're carrying couldn't possibly fit in a backpack. Even if you sew side pouches and such onto your pack.

Why is the order important? Because, if you look through your bags that, again, aren't described anywhere in the book, and only a couple "classes" even start with, you have to roll 2d6 and try to get that item's place or higher in your list. What makes this dumber is that you can roll 1d6 and put that many things down, regardless of placement.

You can also drop 2d6 different items on the ground, though magically they are always broken or somehow last. Maybe they just clip through the world, like a badly coded video game.

Monsters have a single stat, Skill, which covers everything they want to do. So a lizardman uses his Skill 8 for stabbing you, sneaking around, running, climbing, gambling, feminist gender studies slam poetry, everything. Because it was too hard to just give all of 36 monsters some variety.

The stat blocks, if you can call them that, have a table for a "mien", which essentially means behavior (the author is just trying to sound smarter than he is). Each table has six results, and they're just one word like paranoid, smug, or hungry and so don't really add anything. Here's an example of one:


So, what, all trolls are just guards? Of what? Of where? What do they look like? Who is hiring them? And, yes, why? If they're just lazy assholes, what's the point? Or, is this an attempt to be humorous? Because, if so, it's as flat as the implied setting. 

It finally wraps up with an atrocious "adventure", in which you apparently decide to stay at a hotel for no particular reason (you're just there and really need the room), but there's only one room available, and are essentially railroaded into trying to get there. I guess you get what you pay for, which is nothing, because no prices are mentioned. You're also encouraged to attend the "Feast of the Chiliarch", which isn't described at all.

There's a bar where you can buy a "dizzying array of exotic pickled vegetables", none of which are described of course, but only sells one type of alcoholic beverage, presumably because the author couldn't be bothered to write "a dizzying array of exotic alcoholic beverages". As with everything else, no prices are mentioned.

Really it's a bunch of random nonsense with no larger point or purpose. You eventually get to your room, or don't, and if you bother to go to the nondescript party can "mingle" to roll on a table to see what other stupid lolsorandom mission you can do, next, like investigate where two brothers got "paper hats of scandalous style and unknown origin", or investigate why some street has been overrun by stray cats.

Yeah, this sounds just like Planescape. Personally we went plane-hopping, going to other places like the Outlands, the heavens, hells, Mechanus, but no, delivering a sausage roll to a lamassu (this is one of the options on the table) is just as interesting, exciting, and rewarding, and not at all lolsorandom.

25 comments:

  1. @zcxx,

    While I'd love to debate the alleged "quality" of Troika's "art", I'm not going to interact with anyone hiding behind a private profile, or anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @zcxx,

    Again, I'm not going to interact with you if you're going to hide behind a private profile. I will keep the comments on hand though in case I need them at some point. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I understand you hate private profiles so I will say this as me. You are genuinely the dumbest motherfucker I have ever seen if you consider the d66 to be a gimmick. Like genuinely I have no clue how on earth you can consider yourself to be someone with an opinion worth listening to on tabletop games when you see the d66 and think it is a gimmick. Even if we ignore every other aspect of this piece what the fuck are you talking about with the d66.
    It's obvious you went to into review wanting to dunk on every single aspect of this game because you don't like the way it is written. Genuinely it's like calling call of cthulhu gimmicky for using the d%.

    I understand this is a small point but it's such a wildly ahistorical and belligerent thing to say and it's impossible to take you seriously when you say things like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Stella,

      “I understand you hate private profiles so I will say this as me.”

      Braver that most, which I can respect.

      “You are genuinely the dumbest motherfucker I have ever seen if you consider the d66 to be a gimmick.”

      Why does regarding a gimmick as a gimmick make someone the “dumbest motherfucker” you have ever seen, period? Come on, man: there are people that not only voted for Biden, but STILL think he’s doing a good job!

      “Like genuinely I have no clue how on earth you can consider yourself to be someone with an opinion worth listening to on tabletop games when you see the d66 and think it is a gimmick.”

      And yet, here you are.

      “Even if we ignore every other aspect of this piece what the fuck are you talking about with the d66.”

      Why are you obsessed over my pointing out that the d66 gimmick is a gimmick? Out of all my criticisms, why does THIS hit you the hardest? You’ve published some adventures for Troika, and promoted someone shoveling out, of all things, more backgrounds. So, what, did you slap together some lame ass indie game that relies entirely on a d66 mechanic? Did a d66 save your life? Is a d66 backing your Patreon at a meaningful level? Giving you regular cash via ko-fi?

      It’s completely pointless and misleading, because you can’t get 66 results. I’d say the same thing about someone having a d48, d86, a d69 where you roll a d6 and then 3d3 and add them up, d666, or whatever. Use a normal fucking die, or a dice mechanic that gives you the full spread of numbers. It’s like saying d20, but you roll 5d4 so you can only get a 5-20. And I just realized that this makes it both gimmicky AND misleading.

      There’s no benefit, unless you could only come up with PRECISELY 37 results for a table AND you genuinely thought that there is a completely equal chance for every result occurring. Otherwise you’d pare it down and go with a d20, or even a d100 if you wanted to adjust it to account for frequency. Could have also used multiple tables (roll a d4 to see if you get table A, B, C, or D, and then something else).

      But see, this requires you to think and try harder. Two things I’ve noticed that a lot of the indie so-called OSR crowd is incapable of doing. Probably explains why the guy ripped off Fighting Fantasy of all things.

      Delete
    2. “It's obvious you went to into review wanting to dunk on every single aspect of this game because you don't like the way it is written.”

      “You only hate it because you WANTED to!” This has GOT to be some sort of logical fallacy. Of course if YOU hate something it’s always illegitimate. Everyone else, hating things you like? Well they’re just being dishonest. Or whatever reason you imagine so that you can more easily dismiss their criticisms.

      Yeah, the guy loves the phrase “hump-backed sky”, but the bad writing pales in comparison to the horrendous design and content. Or, lack thereof. Like portals and “golden-sailed barges”. Where are those described, again? Aren’t they kind of important?

      “Genuinely it's like calling call of cthulhu gimmicky for using the d%.”

      The so-called d66 is not the ONLY reason it is gimmicky. Again: why is this such a big deal to you? What about the rest of Troika’s innumerable shortcomings and failures?

      “I understand this is a small point but it's such a wildly ahistorical and belligerent thing to say and it's impossible to take you seriously when you say things like that.”

      Now this IS a fallacy. Faulty generalization, perhaps? How does my statement of d66 being a gimmick mean that I’m (wildly, apparently) unconcerned with or ignorant of history?

      Delete
    3. @Stella,

      To be approved, your response needs to be something more than "I could totally prove you wrong, but I just don't want to" couched within a string of personal attacks.

      Feel free to keep them coming, though. As with ben's submissions it further proves how bad this trash game is. They also might be good fodder for a post at some point to show how insane you guys are.

      Delete
  4. @benjamin wenham,

    I’m also not going to approve what are essentially personal attacks (especially when that's all they are). But feel free to post it on one of your many abandoned blogs. Or all of them. Did you know that blogs can have more than a couple posts? You can use them for years.

    I actually appreciate these sorts of comments, as it reinforces my criticisms regarding the game. Because if I was wrong, or you had some sort of defense, you would instead explain. But none of you guys do, despite having quite a long time to have done so, which tells me that you cannot.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @benjamin wenham,

    These responses are sad. Troika tribe certainly isn’t sending their best, brightest, and mentally stable.

    Going to stop responding now, unless you bring something resembling an argument or point to the table.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The very thesis of Troika is to avoid having an almanac of tables of how much everything should cost, and to avoid chapters of lore behind every aspect of the world.
    "How big are the "golden-sailed barges"? How much do they cost? How durable are they? How fast do they travel?".
    If you're unable to answer any of those questions yourself that only betrays a lack of imagination. My golden-sailed barges cost £20 to ride, roughly a month's salary for the average worker. They are extremely well-built, able to withstand 3 direct hits from a sky-pirates scatter-cannon. Travel between two nearby spheres takes 3 days. As someone who has run and played D&D for years, it was such a breath of fresh air to not have every aspect of the world pre-written. Obviously this approach is not for everyone, but being able to take the framework of the universe - there are spheres (worlds) and barges that fly between them, and then fill the blanks with my own creation is Troika's USP. Wouldn't it be fun if the golden-sailed barges were cheap, rickety death-traps that took forever, and the party try to avoid barge travel if possible? Wouldn't it also be fun if they were extravagant cruise ships for the ultra-rich, where only after a long campaign would the party be able to afford passage to another sphere? A page that answers all the questions you ask robs the story of these possibilities. Troika is a system for people that love to take ideas and spin them into stories. It's for people that see an unexplained aspect of the world and can fill it with their imagination. It's for people that roll the character 'Ardent Giant of Corda' and say "fuck yeah, I'm going to be a 12ft tall blue-skinned dude that can guide people through portals". What do YOU think the drawbacks of being 12ft are? Not gonna be comfortable in tight spaces, that's for sure.
    For every question you ask in your review, I can think of 10 unique answers. That's why Troika is for me, and not for you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Frank A,

    Even though your profile is technically anonymous (no links or anything), your comment was interesting enough that I felt I would respond to it.

    It's also long and detailed enough that I wanted to do a line-by-line response, which is better done as a blog post, to which I then thought of doing a back and forth with you. If you're interested email me: david.m.guyll@protonmail.com.

    You can also just tell me via comment that you don't want to, and I'll just respond like normal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's ok. There really is no need for a line-by-line response rebutting what was essentially my explanation for why I enjoy Troika. You do not like that fact Troika does not give you coherent or detailed information about the world. I love the fact that Troika does not give me coherent or detailed information about the world. And that's perfectly fine! We're allowed to like different things and have different opinions. I also think different opinions shouldn't be censored but hey, it's your blog.
      Finally, I think Troika sums it up perfectly for me on the very first page in the book.

      "Inside this book you will find people and artefacts from these worlds which will suggest the shape of things. The adventure and wonder are in the gaps; your game is defined by the ways in which you fill them."

      Delete
  8. Andy,

    No anonymous (or effectively anonymous) profiles.

    ReplyDelete
  9. PinkOkami,

    With very few exceptions, no anonymous (or effectively anonymous) profiles.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @adacourt,

    No anonymous or effectively anonymous profiles.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Anonymous,

    After all the times I've had to tell people that they cannot submit anonymous comments on this post alone, you bother to do the same while criticizing my "cognitive understanding"?

    The lady doth project too much, methinks.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nice try, but you REALLY seem to have completely lost the plot here. It's pretty clear that your imagination is a bit lacking and your pedantic insistence on what an RPG actually is, makes you completely unqualified to offer a critical opinion on this thing.

    Disliking a game is one thing. What you just offered goes way beyond that - anything outside your limited experience must be very scary for you, I should think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't normally approve comments from anonymous or effectively anonymous people, so count yourself lucky I guess. However, if you don't respond to questions or provide clarifications I won't approve any new comments.

      “Nice try…”

      Thanks.

      “...but you REALLY seem to have completely lost the plot here.”

      The plot to what?

      “It's pretty clear that your imagination is a bit lacking…”

      Based on what?

      “...and your pedantic insistence on what an RPG actually is…”

      Where did I define what an RPG is?

      “...makes you completely unqualified to offer a critical opinion on this thing.”

      This is a really pathetic excuse to just dismiss the entire review, which implies that you’re incapable of defending it from the slew of other criticisms. But I’ve come to expect this little from people that at least pretend to like Troika, Mork Borg, Index Card RPG, etc.

      “Disliking a game is one thing.”

      Mmhmm.

      “What you just offered goes way beyond that…”

      Clarify.

      “...anything outside your limited experience must be very scary for you, I should think.”

      The lady doth project too much, methinks.

      Delete
  13. To play devil's advocate, I don't think the d66 is as much gimmicky as it is overly trendy lately, as much as DCC using d13, d16 or d30 tables when they could be easily making d12, 2d6 or d20, etc.
    I agree that the art is horrible and not even interesting in a cool or edgy way. Was it AI art or art made to look like bad AI art? It's like medieval illuminations crossed with the Beatles' Yellow Submarine, and not in any good kind of way.
    I think the biggest draw for this game is people wanting to play something silly and odd, and that's where Into the Odd and other games in this vein materialized from. A lot of people do this stuff way better.
    I don't hate minimalist games but I do hate minimalism just to say, "Hey, look at me. I'm being different." Although I disagreed with some of what you said about Mörk Borg, I think this review is a bit more on point. If you want to play a silly sort of game, you could do it better without this. I'm actually surprised that so many people (some of which make amazing content themselves) are so enamored by this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Interesting that you dislike Troika, Shadowdark, Mork Borg and Hardcore 5e... What is it that you like? I am genuinely interested in what Science Fantasy RPG games you would reccomend considering your tastes, from the looks of your blog are that you dont like many RPGs...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Interesting that you dislike Troika, Shadowdark, Mork Borg and Hardcore 5e…”

      Why is this “interesting”?

      “What is it that you like?”

      In terms of TTRPGs, I enjoyed 2E AD&D and 3rd Edition, and while I would play either and likely still enjoy them to varying degrees, still consider them to have many flaws. I also liked 3rd Edition Shadowrun (I played that one and maybe also 2nd Edition), at least the ideas behind some White Wolf games (and some of the mechanics are interesting). Rifts I think I would have enjoyed if my group at the time weren’t mostly horrible to game with, though it is also quite flawed.

      There are more that I have played, and likely plenty that I would like that I haven’t played, read, or even heard of. I should also point out that while I might play them I wouldn’t run them, as my time has become significantly more limited, my interests have changed and I have long since become much more proactive in making the sorts of games that I want to play, as opposed to just sitting around and hoping that someone else happens to do it for me.

      Now, what I “like” isn’t unified by system: I’ve enjoyed d20 as well as dice pool games. I’ve also worked with both and am currently torn between sticking with d20 since my game of choice uses that and I don’t know that I want to go through all the work changing it to something else, but dice pools can make more sense.

      I think what I like about those games is that they are largely complete packages. In 3rd Edition D&D you get a rule that can feasibly cover very likely adventuring scenarios, such as falling, starvation, foraging for food, holding your breath, etc. And while some are overly complex (grappling), ultimately pointless (trying to trip an enemy), and/or otherwise flawed (crafting items), they are still there and it’s clear that some attempt was made and that the writers and designers cared.

      You also get a lot of useful tables, a very comprehensive list of equipment, and treasure, and a bunch of monsters with at least some semblance of a description, though I would argue 2nd Edition was much better in that regard. 3rd Edition even has tables for trade goods, animals, clothing, etc, stuff that you might find and wish to sell that isn’t obviously treasure, which was incredibly useful because when I ran the first Age of Worms adventure for the first time, the party actually took the time to remove every single iron sphere from a trap so that they could gradually sell them over time.

      Another part of the package is not just mechanics, items and tables but also ideas, which was more useful in Shadowrun and Rifts because as a child I wasn’t familiar with those sorts of genres and settings. So being able to read the flavor material made it easier to design whatever adventures are called for those games, and better describe the world and how it works.

      “I am genuinely interested in what Science Fantasy RPG games you would reccomend considering your tastes, from the looks of your blog are that you dont like many RPGs…”

      I’m not sure why you are focusing on the Science Fantasy genre, but I’d still recommend Dungeons & Dragons, because you can make it essentially science fantasy by introducing those elements: crashed space ships ray guns, alien monsters, etc.

      Delete
  15. @Voidron,

    Your profile was created this month, you are effectively anonymous, and your comment doesn't contribute anything to anything, so while it will be saved it will not be posted.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Aidan Sweeney,

    No anonymous or effectively anonymous profiles.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @pathetic fat loser,

    With few exceptions, no anonymous or effectively anonymous accounts.

    ReplyDelete

Powered by Blogger.