• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

What is the least playable RPG?

RobertEdwards

Registered User
Validated User
FATAL's contemporary RaHoWa (Racial Holy War) didn't have a complete rule set. And was as foul and disgusting as the F.

I'll defend the Charlotte/Hume games. Nothing at all wrong with Bushido. Aftermath was admittedly way too complicated, but it was complete and some people did slog through it and loved it. Daredevils was great, though extended tasks were jargony rules. Not as tedious as Chivalry and Sorcery's enchantment or spell learning.
 

Strange Visitor

Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
My vote is for AH's Powers and Perils, with an honourable mention award going to Aftermath.
Neither was literally unplayable (I ran more than one campaign of Aftermath!, and at least started a campaign of P&P once) though I think P&P's compulsive special-casing puts it closer to the mark (Aftermath might have been a busy system, but it was a fairly consistent one).
 

Strange Visitor

Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
Disappointingly, some people are conflating "difficult/unpleasant to play" with "unplayable" so they can take potshots at their least favorite systems. 😕
While I agree "unpleasant to play" shouldn't be a criteria, I think as a game gets more and more difficult for some people to play it does indeed approach "unplayable". After all the question in the thread title isn't "What system is unplayable" its "what is the least playable."

And there's inevitably going to be some subjectivity to it; I bounced hard off of Spacemaster the one time I tried it, and I've played a number of other games traditionally viewed as difficult (Aftermath has come up several times for example) so it doesn't even automatically turn on how crunchy or complex a game is so much as how much it matches up with your particular ability to engage with its mechanics.
 

Strange Visitor

Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
I'll defend the Charlotte/Hume games. Nothing at all wrong with Bushido. Aftermath was admittedly way too complicated, but it was complete and some people did slog through it and loved it. Daredevils was great, though extended tasks were jargony rules. Not as tedious as Chivalry and Sorcery's enchantment or spell learning.
I loved me some Aftermath, and would still run/play it with a couple of tweaks; Bushido had a couple of clunky rules (one of which was one of those things that made sense in context, but was a sociodynamic nightmare at the table). Daredevils suffered from the fact it was the same rules set for Aftermath, where a lot of the crunch served some serious purpose, applied to a pulp-adventure game where they really didn't.
 

Scurrilous

Registered User
Validated User
Yeah, some of my best campaigns were in RMSS and I even ran a short Space Master Privateers campaign. The rules aren't as complex as people make out but there is a lot of data on the character sheet.
 

the cat

Drone
Validated User
R. Talsorian games Dragon Ball Z. The character creation rules are such that PCs cannot raise certian stats...yet named characters have these stats way beyond what is allowed. A later q and A said these were "boosted" but the core book does not state that you can boost these either.

That and the game breaks down once characters get beyond the 3d6 bell curve that instant fusion is based on.
"Your fighting score is 100? Well my Death trooper has 120 base evasion. You will likely never hit me"

Humorously enough the other RPG version of the game based loosely on palladium we found was more playable.
 

Nate_MI

Formerly 'Raveled'
Validated User
Humorously enough the other RPG version of the game based loosely on palladium we found was more playable.
You mean the one where your base power level was d66 x 100? So you could have an 1100 or a 6600 power level in the same party?
 
Top Bottom