Worst Tabletop RPG

[WanderingMist]

Quick - name a sci-fi romcom. A sci-fi whodunnit. A sci-fi coming of age film.

Does Alien not fit all 3, if viewed from the aliens' perspective?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though, if you want serious answers,

Closest thing I can think for a rom-com is Futurama.

"Little Lost Robot" from I, Robot (novel, not film) mostly fits for a whodunnit.

Maybe Pendragon series for coming-of-age.

[ImNotTrevor]

Quick - name a sci-fi romcom. A sci-fi whodunnit. A sci-fi coming of age film.

scifi romcom: I can't name a fantasy romcom, either. Maybe Back To The Future III could count.

Scifi Whodunnit: Minority Report, Bladerunner (both), Arrival (a mystery, at least), Altered Carbon (TV series), i,robot (film), A Scanner Darkly, The Prestige, 12 Monkeys

Scifi Coming-of-age: Starwars, Super 8, Donnie Darko, The Giver, See You Yesterday, THE BACK TO THE FUTURE TRILOGY

[Batcathat]

Maybe Her could qualify as a sci-fi romcom? Possibly a little light on the comedy, but it has its moments.

Or maybe Eternal Sunshine on the Spotless Mind? Also a little on the dark side but certainly with funny moments.

[Anonymouswizard]

Quick - name a sci-fi romcom. A sci-fi whodunnit. A sci-fi coming of age film.

I don't have time to search through every Doctor Who serial/episode, but there's almost certainly one of each in there (due to the large periods in which it played genre roulette, even if there's also years long stretches of military stories or gothic horror or whatever). Okay, I'm not 100% certain about the coming of age story, we might need Big Finish for that. Heck, most of 60s Who is investigation focused, it was over it's action-genre years by the time Star Wars was out, and I believe had passed it's horror phase by the time Alien had come out.

Not that Doctor Who is a trend setter, it mostly just ignores trends. It's also the big science fiction franchise over here, definitely dominating popular culture compared to Star Trek, Star Wars, or Alien. It dominates the small screen as Star Wars does the big screen, and honestly in the coming years that might be more important for how people view genres (which could lead to us sliding back towards 60s talky sci-fi more, which I'd love as I love 60s SF).

[Mechalich]

"Sci-Fi rom-com" includes a huge chunk of the planetary romance subgenre, including almost everything ever written by Anne McCaffery. Also if Isekai's qualify as science fiction (there's a fairly strong case for some, not so much for others), then a huge fraction of that subgenre is much more focused on the romantic elements than anything else.

[Anonymouswizard]

Portal Fantasy!

[Jason]

Hm. I wonder how I got my decades mixed up. The dangers of recalling conversations from too many years ago without verification.

Well I was there for some of it. I remember listening to the BBC radio version in bed when it was broadcast in the US and being freaked out during the "Weathertop" episode where the ringwraiths come and stab Frodo. I think I was 9 at the time, and I believe I was reading the book for the first time at about the same time (I did read the Weathertop chapter before I heard the radio play). I wasn't introduced to D&D until I got the redbox Basic set for Christmas in '83 a year or two later.

[WanderingMist]

"Sci-Fi rom-com" includes a huge chunk of the planetary romance subgenre, including almost everything ever written by Anne McCaffery. Also if Isekai's qualify as science fiction (there's a fairly strong case for some, not so much for others), then a huge fraction of that subgenre is much more focused on the romantic elements than anything else.

I've read a few of the Pern books, and I don't think they qualify as comedies. Specifically, Dragon's Dawn and Moreta are the ones I remember, but I read one or two more.

Also, just realized WALL-E probably counts as a sci-fi rom-com.

[NigelWalmsley]

Amazon's Uploaded might count. I would argue that Palm Springs and (maybe kinda) Happy Death Day count. If you accept straight up romances, there's plenty of stuff. But I think the question is somewhat flawed, because it's not like there are particularly less Sci-Fi RomComs than Fantasy RomComs. It's just that "genre fiction RomCom" is not a particularly common premise.

[InvisibleBison]

If we're considering books, I'd say A Civil Campaign is definitely a sci-fi romcom.

[Cluedrew]

For worst effect on the hobby, I still go D&D every time. In a world of good-to-great range RPGs covering virtually anything you could want, D&D remains a spectacularly mediocre one that appeals to the worst traits of munchkinerry and yet has become nearly synonymous with the entire genre.

The metaphor I would actually use if Superman was the only super-hero known to the general public. Especially if they made him a killer again after a backlash to him more pacifist update. Which is to say: In some respects Superman has been updated more than D&D has been.

I don't think D&D is a bad system but if your campaign isn't about going through a dungeon to fight a dragon (where both dungeon and dragon are metaphors for the structural elements they represent) I wouldn't recommend it. The further you go outside of that and the more it is like you trying to have Batman be an alternate universe version of Superman instead of his own character.

Hm. I wonder how I got my decades mixed up. The dangers of recalling conversations from too many years ago without verification.

Luckily you ran it by the crack fact checking team of the Giant in the Playground community.

[EggKookoo]

I don't think D&D is a bad system but if your campaign isn't about going through a dungeon to fight a dragon (where both dungeon and dragon are metaphors for the structural elements they represent) I wouldn't recommend it. The further you go outside of that and the more it is like you trying to have Batman be an alternate universe version of Superman instead of his own character.

Can you give an example of going "outside of that" in a way that causes D&D specifically to run aground?

[Anonymouswizard]

Can you give an example of going "outside of that" in a way that causes D&D specifically to run aground?

For a big RPG genre, horror. Yes it has sanity mechanics for Cosmic Horror style sanity, but it's just not designed to make the PCs powerless in the way that people want.


On that note, Call of Cthulhu is bad in the same way D&D is, in that it pretty much has made single axis sanity systems in RPGs (and computer games) the norm. Multiple axis sanity systems are just better for RPG horror, as are systems for allowing characters to become detached as well as gibbering. Ideally implemented in a way that encourages roleplaying of the effects via mechanics (and to cut this short, blah blah blah I like Unknown Armies 3e and think it's the best horror RPG ever made).

Like, if you want to focus on one aspect of sanity that's fine, but can we say least have a little bit more mechanical weight?

[DrMartin]

Can you give an example of going "outside of that" in a way that causes D&D specifically to run aground?

Investigation is also a rather poor fit for d&d, comparing to system that focus on that as the main story element. It's entirely on the DM shoulder to provide enough avenues to success to counteract bad die rolls, and at the same time provide enough failsafes against "I suddenly know everything" divination magic, in order to have a satisfying and rewarding sleuthing

[EggKookoo]

For a big RPG genre, horror. Yes it has sanity mechanics for Cosmic Horror style sanity, but it's just not designed to make the PCs powerless in the way that people want.

That was the go-to I was anticipating. I think the problem with Cthulhu-like horror and D&D is more one of setting than mechanics. It's hard to justify having your PC lose his marbles upon witnessing something reality-bending when that PC can cast multiple reality-bending spells himself. Or the barbarian reeling in existential horror upon witnessing the bloody aftermath of some mass carnage when, frankly, that's just Tuesday for him.

I ran into this a bit in my own game. My 3rd level party broke into the boss's chamber to be confronted by a Mind Flayer. I tried to communicate the otherworldy weirdness to the players and they kind of got what I was going for, but at the same time they each do Three Magical Things Before Breakfast, so it didn't really ring true. Adding a good sanity mechanic wouldn't address this. It's a question of believability (or suspension of disbelief, rather).

On that note, Call of Cthulhu is bad in the same way D&D is, in that it pretty much has made single axis sanity systems in RPGs (and computer games) the norm. Multiple axis sanity systems are just better for RPG horror, as are systems for allowing characters to become detached as well as gibbering. Ideally implemented in a way that encourages roleplaying of the effects via mechanics (and to cut this short, blah blah blah I like Unknown Armies 3e and think it's the best horror RPG ever made).

Like, if you want to focus on one aspect of sanity that's fine, but can we say least have a little bit more mechanical weight?

The appeal of CoC's San was that it was a resource that slowly, and usually irrevocably, deteriorated. As your Sanity dropped, you knew the end of your PC was drawing near. The final tipping point was kind of beside the point. The point was the anticipation and anxiety generated over seeing that gradual loss.

It wouldn't take much to give a D&D PC "Sanity Points" akin to hit points, with some amount generated based on Wisdom and Intelligence or something. And then when the PC fails a wisdom save (or a sanity save, if you use that ability), points are deducted from those points, and are only restored via some pretty high level magic or a long time away from adventuring (or they can't be restored at all). But I think that would feel funny tacked onto the game. Not for mechanical reasons but because most people play D&D for hero/action/combat than horror/nihilism. At the same time, you could staple a D&D-style combat system onto Call of Cthulhu, where investigators gain levels and Proficiency Bonuses and get versatile and powerful combat-oriented features and maybe even magic items. But it would defeat the purpose of a game like CoC, in which the PCs are meant to feel vulnerable and inferior to any supernatural challenge they encounter.

I guess what I'm saying is, the criticism that D&D isn't good at horror is really no different than the criticism that CoC isn't good at tactical hero-action combat. It's not really an effective criticism of either, it's just an observation that different genres have different needs.

Now, an effective criticism might be leveled at oWoD v2, especially Vampire but also many of the other ones. If you were to look at V:tM's mechanics, you might be forgiven for thinking the game is all about D&D-style tactical monster-hero-combat. Kindred PCs are loaded up with cool combat powers. But the game is packaged as gothic horror with a strong psychological flavoring. Combat, in the presentation, is treated almost like a secondary element. At least Werewolf: the Apocalypse leans more toward "kill them all and let Gaia sort them out," which justifies how ridiculously lethal the Garou are, but Vampire pretended to be above all that "roll playing" stuff, except, you know, how the game was actually built.

Investigation is also a rather poor fit for d&d, comparing to system that focus on that as the main story element. It's entirely on the DM shoulder to provide enough avenues to success to counteract bad die rolls, and at the same time provide enough failsafes against "I suddenly know everything" divination magic, in order to have a satisfying and rewarding sleuthing

But again, this is no different than Call of Cthulhu. It's very easy for a CoC GM to inadvertently trap the players by not presenting clues and whatnot in a way that rewards putting in some effort to find them, but not make them so easy that the players can't really fail. Believe me, I know, I've played CoC for hundreds if not thousands of hours over the decades, and probably half of that time was spent with us sitting around confused, trying to understand where the plot was. D&D isn't good at investigation because a bad DM can make it a nightmare -- well so is Call of Cthulhu, for the exact same reason!

My point (to reiterate from above) isn't to try to argue that D&D is good at investigation or horror. I'm just saying it's not fair to single out D&D for being bad at such things when pretty much every game out there is good at one thing or bad at another.

[Anonymouswizard]

That was the go-to I was anticipating. I think the problem with Cthulhu-like horror and D&D is more one of setting than mechanics. It's hard to justify having your PC lose his marbles upon witnessing something reality-bending when that PC can cast multiple reality-bending spells himself. Or the barbarian reeling in existential horror upon witnessing the bloody aftermath of some mass carnage when, frankly, that's just Tuesday for him.

I ran into this a bit in my own game. My 3rd level party broke into the boss's chamber to be confronted by a Mind Flayer. I tried to communicate the otherworldy weirdness to the players and they kind of got what I was going for, but at the same time they each do Three Magical Things Before Breakfast, so it didn't really ring true. Adding a good sanity mechanic wouldn't address this. It's a question of believability (or suspension of disbelief, rather).

Yes, but rules inform setting (and in the design stage setting informs rules). How much a character facing a Deep One is affected should differ between D&D, Unknown Armies, the Launbdry, and Call of Cthulhu because the settings all differ, and the rules should reflect this. In D&D it doesn't affect you. In Unkonown Armies it affects you unless you're desensitised. In CoC you're more likely to be okay if you've not seen other weird stuff.

The appeal of CoC's San was that it was a resource that slowly, and usually irrevocably, deteriorated. As your Sanity dropped, you knew the end of your PC was drawing near. The final tipping point was kind of beside the point. The point was the anticipation and anxiety generated over seeing that gradual loss.

Sure, which is fine in CoC. It's not fine in every horror RPG, or even every Lovecraftian one. But it's now the standard because it's what people expect.

...I guess what I'm saying is, the criticism that D&D isn't good at horror is really no different than the criticism that CoC isn't good at tactical hero-action combat. It's not really an effective criticism of either, it's just an observation that different genres have different needs.

And yet there are people who try to run everything in D&D. So until they stop doing that I'll continue to bring it up.

[EggKookoo]

And yet there are people who try to run everything in D&D. So until they stop doing that I'll continue to bring it up.

We ran CoC by way of Indiana Jones. It was a bad fit with CoC's simplistic combat system, but we found we liked it.

If the people playing D&D-as-horror are enjoying it, what's the criticism for?

[Vahnavoi]

You can use Call of Cthulhu for things other than horror because it has a lot of rules for mundane things - there's a serviceable system for non-horror detective and historical games there.

You can use D&D for horror because it has all the necessary building blocks for horror, from dark cramped spaces to every monster in old and urban myths alike, and low level characters are weak. After running what's basically a D&D retroclone (Lamentations of the Flame Princess) for horror enough times, I'm convinced the crowd who claim "you can't do horror in D&D" never gave it an honest shot.

[awa]

I would argue its not so much that D&d can't do things outside the dungeon crawl well its that the dm needs to take up the slack. The dm needs to know what their doing.

Ive done horror plenty of times using 3rd edition. (generally for low level) but that relied on me more than the rules.

I think people underestimate the value of a system that can do a ton of things fine. Compared to needing to buy and learn an entire dedicated system for a very niche subject

[EggKookoo]

I would argue its not so much that D&d can't do things outside the dungeon crawl well its that the dm needs to take up the slack. The dm needs to know what their doing.

And, of course, you need player buy-in. Most people sign onto a D&D game to play heroic fantasy action stuff.

[awa]

definitely, though I find most players are willing to do a spooky haunted house or other horror adventure in between the heroic fantasy as a change of pace.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'd still rather not do it, because there are systems that actuallygive you tools to set up horror (of various sorts).

[Telok]

And, of course, you need player buy-in. Most people sign onto a D&D game to play heroic fantasy action stuff.

And of course for somethong like D&D doing horror you need the PCs to be less monstrous and horriffic than the "horrible monsters". When your party has a half-illithid binder and a necropolitan cleric of an atropal that casts spells to remove effects and makes them immune to fear... well standard vampires and tentacle monsters are less "horror" and more "oh god, it's my mother-in-law again".

[Quertus]

Can you give an example of going "outside of that" in a way that causes D&D specifically to run aground?

D&D, as written, is bad for horror, as others have said, because it is difficult to make it *fit*. However, one GM had a 4th-wall-breaking "Cleric of AD&D", who had an existential crisis when he considered the possibility that he might be an NPC. So you *can* do horror in D&D, but you just need to be smart, and figure out something that would *actually* horrify magical monster-hunting murderhobos.

OTOH, D&D is *great* at investigation. What it isn't good at is making investigation a *challenge*. In fact, because the capabilities of the party can vary so greatly, it's difficult to create a mystery module that isn't trivial for some parties, and impossible for others.

All in all, I'd say that probably the best (or one of the best) horror games I played in was run in D&D. And same for the best mystery. Not that I think that D&D is particularly *optimal* for either, but it's just not true that it's impossible to use D&D for either.

[EggKookoo]

And same for the best mystery. Not that I think that D&D is particularly *optimal* for either, but it's just not true that it's impossible to use D&D for either.

The gist behind my question was to explore if "not good for X" was specific to D&D, or just a case of any particular game that's good for X will likely be not so good for Y. In particular, D&D is bad for horror partly because horror makes certain contextual assumptions that don't mesh well with heroic fantasy. But you might get more leverage if you restrict your PCs to humans and near-humans (i.e. no tieflings, dragonborn, etc.) and maybe even no spellcasting classes, but that might be constraining (sidekick warrior and expert, maybe?). Whether or not doing this still counts as "D&D" is probably subject to debate...

[Cluedrew]

Can you give an example of going "outside of that" in a way that causes D&D specifically to run aground?

You know boat is actually an oddly appropriate metaphor because the "water" of D&D (and many other systems) is deep enough that you aren't actually going to run aground the moment the engine cuts out (system doesn't support it) but that doesn't mean you aren't paddling a good hunk of the way yourself. I suppose that free-form role-play would be swimming in this metaphor.

I say that just so the answer of to that question doesn't sound as crazy; you can do these things in D&D if you are willing to paddle far enough. All of them. Mysteries, (social) dramas or horror are all bad story focuses. Sci-fi, modern (including superheroes) and to an extent other forms of fantasy don't match the expected setting. You want to tell a story about building a community, creating a new invention or going on a long trip? GM has to string together a bunch of yes/no checks to do it with little support. Do you want to be a carpenter, an engineer, an investor, a mayor or a survivalist? Well that can be a hobby on the side of fighting (all D&D classes are fighter sub-classes).

In fact with the exception of dungeon crawl, planned plot adventures and sandbox I can't think of any. And honestly if you don't want to make them combat focused I'm going to have to cross the last two from the list. Oddly these are the ones that computer games do pretty well, I wonder if there is a reason for that.

[Anonymouswizard]

The gist behind my question was to explore if "not good for X" was specific to D&D, or just a case of any particular game that's good for X will likely be not so good for Y. In particular, D&D is bad for horror partly because horror makes certain contextual assumptions that don't mesh well with heroic fantasy. But you might get more leverage if you restrict your PCs to humans and near-humans (i.e. no tieflings, dragonborn, etc.) and maybe even no spellcasting classes, but that might be constraining (sidekick warrior and expert, maybe?). Whether or not doing this still counts as "D&D" is probably subject to debate...

The problem isn't with D&D itself, it not doing horror well it's arguably a good thing (I own a lot of systems just as specialised as D&D). The problem is with the people who insist on trying to fit horror into D&D without understanding how.

D&D games can include horrific elements, but they won't simulate them breaking your character, or your character getting desensitised to such things.

It's more often seen with the people trying to run science fiction in D&D and bending over backwards to fit wizards in. I just want to scream 'get Traveller/Alternity/Eclipse Phase/Rocket Age/Cyberpunk/Scum &Villainy [delete as appropriate]' at them.

I mean, I'm currently writing a game meant to do 60s style science fiction. It does it quite well, but it would be pretty rubbish at running Star Wars because it's not meant for that.

[Max_Killjoy]

The worst experience I've ever had playing an RPG was playing FFG's Star Wars system. It was with basically the same gamemaster and group as had played in another very good Star Wars game using the Saga edition a few years earlier, so I chalk it up to the game mechanics as the problem.

It's not that they didn't work, it's that they utterly failed to feel like Star Wars to me. I played a Jedi who was also a starfighter pilot, and as it turns out the system isn't very good at making either of those feel like they do in the movies.

As a Jedi I was annoyed at:

• How it was impossible to effectively defend myself from blaster shots (you can only reduce the damage of blaster shots by a relatively insignificant amount, not deflect them entirely, unless you buy lots of talents in specific talent trees). Compare that to the movies, where even padawans can fully deflect multiple blaster bolts each round.
• How whether an action drew on the Dark Side or not and therefore caused character conflict or not was determined entirely by whether the Dark Side or Light Side pips came up on the dice, not by what you were trying to do or what motivated your character. In fact, as a starting character its more than likely for the single die you get to come up Dark Side, since there are more Dark Side results on the die than Light Side, so you have to take conflict for doing just about ''anything'' with the Force.
• How conflict didn't matter much anyway, because it was extremely easy to become a lightside paragon and just stay above 90 morality, no matter what the dice said.

Some of the Force powers were rather limited and others were way overpowered, but that's probably true of any Star Wars game.

As a starfighter pilot I was annoyed by how starfighter combat was basically "He who hits first wins". Starship weapons are so damaging and starfighters have so few hull points that the only effective tactic was to hit the other guy before he got a chance at shooting at you. Maneuvers were so abstract and had so little effect on hit probability that they were basically useless.

As a player overall I was annoyed by how frequently non-sensical dice results would come up. It became almost routine to completely fail at whatever a PC was trying to do but have huge amounts of Advantage that we could spend on minor benefits that wouldn't effect the main result. Or to have multiple Triumphs with a failure or multiple Despairs with a success. Much of the time the gamemaster simply ignored the advantage or threat and just concerned himself with whether the roll had succeeded or not.

A system that can't emulate its source material is a system I consider a failure. I won't say that I will never play the game again, but if I do it won't be as a Jedi starfighter pilot.

It's just a bad system, a perfect example of a system built around the attraction of novel mechanics instead of coherent outcomes or faithfulness to the source material.

[Jorren]

The problem isn't with D&D itself, it not doing horror well it's arguably a good thing (I own a lot of systems just as specialised as D&D). The problem is with the people who insist on trying to fit horror into D&D without understanding how.

D&D games can include horrific elements, but they won't simulate them breaking your character, or your character getting desensitised to such things.

It's more often seen with the people trying to run science fiction in D&D and bending over backwards to fit wizards in. I just want to scream 'get Traveller/Alternity/Eclipse Phase/Rocket Age/Cyberpunk/Scum &Villainy [delete as appropriate]' at them.

I mean, I'm currently writing a game meant to do 60s style science fiction. It does it quite well, but it would be pretty rubbish at running Star Wars because it's not meant for that.

I actually think many people do realize that D&D is not necessarily the best game for what they are trying to do. It's just that most of them figure it is easier to just shoehorn something into D&D rather than go through the effort of learning a new game and getting their game group to play it.

Also, if D&D is your frame of reference for RPGs, everything else ends up being compared to D&D in terms of the expectations. This kind of ends up in a situation where it's the least objectionable game and ends up being played because 'Joe doesn't like that weird dice mechanic in FATE and Bob doesn't like the combat in Savage Worlds,' or whatever.

[awa]

also depending on where you live trying to find players for anything other than 5th edition may be somewhere between hard and impossible.