Worst Tabletop RPG

[DrMartin]

I am going to generalize a lot, but: I think that the problem with using d&d for horror is mostly one of expectation, genre conventions, and structure.

D&D begun as a game to simulate a group of people willing to risk their neck to gain power and better their standing in the world. The expectation is that there is a group, there will be some challenges that will be met and, if the players are capable and the die shine, overcome.

It evolved at some point to be about a group of people having adventures, which may or may not imply they have some additional motivation to "get rich, command more people", at least in-game. The expectation is still the same though: there will be challenges, maybe this time also a big villain bent on ending the world, but those challenges will still be met by the heroes and possibly won. In this iteration maybe you have to look for some McGuffin to exploit the villain´s weakness, but still - the assumption is the heroes have the tools to prevail, and their standing at the end of the adventure is going to be better than where they begun. Next time they fight the same villain, it´s going to be a piece of cake, because they are stronger now.

Most horror stories follow the opposite pattern: the heroes are plunged in a bad situation / confronted with some insormontable and terrific challenge, and they have to get out of the situation while keeping all they can of their sanity / bodies intact.
In most cases you end up in a worse standing than where you begun - a rosy ending for a horror story is to just manage to crawl back to where you started.
Moreover, if the same horror strikes again, it´s going to be hell, all over again. Maybe the characters grew stronger, more skilled, more cynical - but the horror is never something you can take down head on - it´s the horror, and is what frames this kind of stories. This is almost exactly the opposite of d&d

You can have a d&d game with horror trappings, but deep down any player with any hint of system mastery knows that any monster they manage to survive by the skin of their teeth *now* is going to be a speed bump two weeks or two months from now - either that or the GM pulled their punches (or framed the situation in a way to permit survival, which is the same thing, just done with more finesse).
This can definitely be fun and atmospheric and memorable and make you feel like you are playing a horror game, but is very different from the premises of a horror game - and hangs almost entirely on the GM shoulder (and it benefits from non-system-savvy players, at least in my experience).

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, it might have been a bad example for how easy a lot of games are to pick up, but it's probably how easy games should be. It's made me wonder if my games are too complex.

Plus it is just a great game. There's some minor bits of text I'd like to see changed (mainly replacing 'bikini garments' with something like 'loincloth and breastwrap'), but the actual rules are incredibly accessible and I could teach the game in five minutes. Especially as it was designed to be a 'one book and done' deal, it's incredibly easy for everybody to be on the same page.

Agreed. There have been a few reviews, and I tend to agree with what others have said. The 'bikini garments' is verisimilitude breaking and could have been replaced with something like 'basic clothes' and a sleight description (possibly just 'these light garments are for hot and humid environments. In modern terms they would leave something, but not much, to the imagination.'). Also a description of ‘teeth filed to points cannibal that derives power from consuming human flesh’ just screams 'oh, look, bad cliffhanger cannibals. But there's no giant iron pot to throw Skipper and Gilligan into <rolleyes>.' Mechanically my only complaint is the XP system. It uses the same 'advancing a pool from A to A+1 costs F(A)' system that 90s era White Wolf games had that penalize not-specializing in a noob-trap manner (optimal choice: 1 talent, 5 traits +2 more by taking flaws, remove flaws first; least optimal choice: 3 talent, 3 traits +2 more by taking flaws, remove flaws last). Other than that, it is a rock solid system and gaming concept (...in which I'm having trouble getting a group interested).

[Anonymouswizard]

Agreed. There have been a few reviews, and I tend to agree with what others have said. The 'bikini garments' is verisimilitude breaking and could have been replaced with something like 'basic clothes' and a sleight description (possibly just 'these light garments are for hot and humid environments. In modern terms they would leave something, but not much, to the imagination.'). Also a description of ‘teeth filed to points cannibal that derives power from consuming human flesh’ just screams 'oh, look, bad cliffhanger cannibals. But there's no giant iron pot to throw Skipper and Gilligan into <rolleyes>.' Mechanically my only complaint is the XP system. It uses the same 'advancing a pool from A to A+1 costs F(A)' system that 90s era White Wolf games had that penalize not-specializing in a noob-trap manner (optimal choice: 1 talent, 5 traits +2 more by taking flaws, remove flaws first; least optimal choice: 3 talent, 3 traits +2 more by taking flaws, remove flaws last). Other than that, it is a rock solid system and gaming concept (...in which I'm having trouble getting a group interested).

Yeah, the XP system could really stand reworking, probably to a flat '+1 trait/talent or -1 flaw per age category increase'. Otherwise I like all the rules but yes, some of the descriptions really should have been rewritten to be less cringey.

[Max_Killjoy]

I see it as less of a question of easy/hard and more of one of return on effort. I can add 1 + 0.25 + 0.5 + 0.75 and divide it by 1 + 1.25 + 0.5 with out too much gear-grinding, but I'd much rather play a game where I just need to add +2 and then +4 to a single die roll. The latter might not have a lot of fidelity to some alleged level of "realism" but honestly I just want to generate a weighted pseudo-random number and get on with things.

Most of the math in HERO is in character creation, not in gameplay. Unless you're doing XP spends during the game session mid-fight, you'd never have to do that math during a combat.

They also make software to handle 90% of the character math now.

[Amdy_vill]

Worst TTRPG wasn't because of the game but was because of the dm, 2e. my first game in dnd 2e was run by a dude I will call jack and he hated math. no clue why he was playing 2e. when I player 2e with a more experience dm 4 years latter I loved it and played in that game for 1 1/2 before moving to 5e

Worst TTRPG from the mechanical/ gameplay point of view had to be star finder, I know it rather good compared to most other posts but I haven't played many bad TTRPG.

[Jorren]

I have a great deal of difficulty ascribing 'worst rpg' to any version of D&D. Don't get me wrong, I no longer care for the game and stopped playing the game after 3.5. I briefly read 4th and 5th just to get an idea of where the game was going and from what I read, where the game is now is more or less an expected evolution of the game.

But for the most part it gets the job done in the sense that it allows you to play a team game, focused on tactical combat, with rules that work most of the time. I mean you can quibble about its specific corner cases, lack of role playing mechanics, and whatnot but for mass appeal it does its job.

[Gizmogidget]

RaHoWa is slightly worse. It's just as offensive as FATAL, although in a different way, but doesn't even have a complete ruleset.

Ya know, having known of FATAL, I should have known better than to look up RaHoWa . . .

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have a great deal of difficulty ascribing 'worst rpg' to any version of D&D. Don't get me wrong, I no longer care for the game and stopped playing the game after 3.5. I briefly read 4th and 5th just to get an idea of where the game was going and from what I read, where the game is now is more or less an expected evolution of the game.

But for the most part it gets the job done in the sense that it allows you to play a team game, focused on tactical combat, with rules that work most of the time. I mean you can quibble about its specific corner cases, lack of role playing mechanics, and whatnot but for mass appeal it does its job.

Agreed. Mostly, D&D does what it set out to do. Not perfectly, not flawlessly, but it works. And what it sets out to do is not to everyone's taste, but that doesn't make it bad. Just not for certain uses.

There are lots of games that just don't work. We should focus on those.

D&D gets lots of hate because it's popular. And a common, if somewhat juvenile, response is to want to differentiate oneself from the masses by showing that they don't like the things others like. "Things I dislike" =/= "things that are bad." At least not inherently.

[Anonymouswizard]

Ya know, having known of FATAL, I should have known better than to look up RaHoWa . . .

Yeah, there's a reason I didn't use the full title.

D&D gets lots of hate because it's popular. And a common, if somewhat juvenile, response is to want to differentiate oneself from the masses by showing that they don't like the things others like. "Things I dislike" =/= "things that are bad." At least not inherently.

Eh, it also gets a lot of hate because some of us just want to play something else. I like a game of D&D, but I also like duck. Didn't mean that I want to eat duck all the Tone, and I don't want the only RPG that I get to play to be D&D.

D&D would get a good deal less hate if it was just s big name and not the only have most people play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh, it also gets a lot of hate because some of us just want to play something else. I like a game of D&D, but I also like duck. Didn't mean that I want to eat duck all the Tone, and I don't want the only RPG that I get to play to be D&D.

D&D would get a good deal less hate if it was just s big name and not the only have most people play.

SET IMPERSONAL_YOU=true

So instead of building up the things you want to play, you tear down the things other people want to play so that they'll think it's bad. Great plan there.

If something has flaws, pointing them out is ok whether or not its popular. For fairness, do so in proportion to the actual flaws.

But acting as if something is horrible to drive people away from it is, in my opinion, not a good tactic. In part because it's so transparent--you get haters jumping onto D&D forums (even edition-haters) and spewing attacks or telling everyone to play <insert favorite game here instead>. Because they can't tolerate someone else not playing their game. But instead, all it does is make people dislike their game.

Positive is better than negative--if you want people to play other games, talk them up. Build communities for them both locally and online. Don't attack other communities, especially by blowing perceived flaws (most of which are matters of taste) out of proportion and acting like they're the worst thing ever. Other people liking different things than you do does not harm you.

/rant

[awa]

(partially ninjaed)
If I had to guess some of the dislike for D&D hits one of two notes either its the worst game they have played because a lot of the really bad games just dont get played.

Second I suspect some people dislike it not because its bad in and of itself but because it dominates the market so much. If you like a different system I suspect it can be frustrating to see some other game that you consider inferior smothering everything.While I dont blame 5th edition it was a little annoying looking for a player and having all the potential talking about how they only wanted to play 5th edition.

I suspect some people dislike D&D not because of D&Ds problems and mechanics but on how the industry bends itself around it.

Fatal may be the worst but how often do real people say its actually good, who actually plays it. But with D&D you have people defending it left and right and if you dont like the game that might make you want to lash out at it even if fatal is worse.

[WanderingMist]

I suspect some people dislike D&D not because of D&Ds problems and mechanics but on how the industry bends itself around it.

Wasn't D&D basically the first one, the thing the industry had to set itself up around?

[Anonymouswizard]

SET IMPERSONAL_YOU=true

So instead of building up the things you want to play, you tear down the things other people want to play so that they'll think it's bad. Great plan there.

'It stops me from playing anything else' is a perfectly valid reason to dislike/hate something. I'm not sure how my post was 'tearing it down' beyond that, but FWIW I do doesn't more time discussing what I actually want to play, it's why I rarely post in the D&D specific subforums.

Let me put it in analogy form again.

I like duck, but that doesn't mean I want to eat duck for ever dinner. Sure there's a lot of dishes that include duck and do I could have a lot of variety, but I still don't want duck every day.

I like D&D, but that doesn't mean I want to play it every game. Sure there are a lot of potential campaigns and so I can have a lot of variety, but I still don't want to play D&D every game.

Marine I've entered in a bit of D&D bashing in this thread, I've honestly forgotten. But that wasn't the point of the post you quoted, that was 'in an industry where you have to play with other people, a game overly popular can be a bad thing when it stiffles people's ability to play other games.' Imagine if you wanted to play Fall Guys but couldn't because everybody only plays Fortnite.

And I need to go back to trying to convince people I know to play Unknown Armies/Paleomythic/Scion/whatever, I almost had a group together but one person can't play for personal reasons.

[Batcathat]

D&D gets lots of hate because it's popular. And a common, if somewhat juvenile, response is to want to differentiate oneself from the masses by showing that they don't like the things others like. "Things I dislike" =/= "things that are bad." At least not inherently.

While that might explain some of the criticism against it, I think it's more about the fact that it's popular enough that almost everyone has some opinion about it, even if they haven't even played it. A lesser known game can spread mostly among the people who like it, with everyone else ignoring it, while it's pretty much impossible to be interested in roleplaying an not have some sort of opinion on D&D, either good or bad.

[Jason]

Wasn't D&D basically the first one, the thing the industry had to set itself up around?

Of course.

It has also stayed on the top of the industry, being consistently more popular and selling more than other games (despite a few temporary dips from time to time no other game has really toppled it from the throne). As noted, just about everyone who has played RPGs has played it at some point, and therefore everyone has an opinion on it.

Because it is so often the game that introduced you to RPGs (often during your adolescent years) there is a tendency to see it as the beginners game and to be quick to say "I've moved on to the more advanced stuff."
D&D itself exploited this tendency in 1976 with the release of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and updating the OD&D rules as "Basic" Dungeons & Dragons with the clear intent of being the intro game to teach you the basics until you're ready to play the "real" game. See, now you're playing the "Advanced" version!

[PhoenixPhyre]

'It stops me from playing anything else' is a perfectly valid reason to dislike/hate something. I'm not sure how my post was 'tearing it down' beyond that, but FWIW I do doesn't more time discussing what I actually want to play, it's why I rarely post in the D&D specific subforums.

Let me put it in analogy form again.

I like duck, but that doesn't mean I want to eat duck for ever dinner. Sure there's a lot of dishes that include duck and do I could have a lot of variety, but I still don't want duck every day.

I like D&D, but that doesn't mean I want to play it every game. Sure there are a lot of potential campaigns and so I can have a lot of variety, but I still don't want to play D&D every game.

Marine I've entered in a bit of D&D bashing in this thread, I've honestly forgotten. But that wasn't the point of the post you quoted, that was 'in an industry where you have to play with other people, a game overly popular can be a bad thing when it stiffles people's ability to play other games.' Imagine if you wanted to play Fall Guys but couldn't because everybody only plays Fortnite.

And I need to go back to trying to convince people I know to play Unknown Armies/Paleomythic/Scion/whatever, I almost had a group together but one person can't play for personal reasons.

I don't have a problem with people saying "Eh, I don't like D&D because it does XYZ" or "I want to play something else" or whatever. I do have a problem with (and this was the post you replied to) "D&D is bad because XYZ" where XYZ are personal taste issues. Especially when the reason you're (impersonal you here) attacking it because you want people to play ABC instead. It doesn't convince anyone to move--in fact it hardens people's opinions.

And that's what it seemed you were implying--that you'd not attack D&D if more people would instead play <your game> instead. But that doesn't work. Attacking never builds communities. If you want more people to play <your game>, talk it up. Build it up. Don't try to steal people from other games by attacking what they like or trying to convince them that it's not really that good. That's ugly behavior IMO. Attacking something because it's popular doesn't work.

Bad =/= I don't like. And here (and on other forums) the two get thoroughly conflated. And it irks me. In part because it's a habit I find it easy to fall into, so I'm vigilant about it.

[Telok]

Well I can say that a D&D game was the worst game I ever played and that D&D has never been in the running for the best game I ever played. But that's mostly due to people and statistics, not the game.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't have a problem with people saying "Eh, I don't like D&D because it does XYZ" or "I want to play something else" or whatever. I do have a problem with (and this was the post you replied to) "D&D is bad because XYZ" where XYZ are personal taste issues. Especially when the reason you're (impersonal you here) attacking it because you want people to play ABC instead. It doesn't convince anyone to move--in fact it hardens people's opinions.

And that's what it seemed you were implying--that you'd not attack D&D if more people would instead play <your game> instead. But that doesn't work. Attacking never builds communities. If you want more people to play <your game>, talk it up. Build it up. Don't try to steal people from other games by attacking what they like or trying to convince them that it's not really that good. That's ugly behavior IMO. Attacking something because it's popular doesn't work.

Bad =/= I don't like. And here (and on other forums) the two get thoroughly conflated. And it irks me. In part because it's a habit I find it easy to fall into, so I'm vigilant about it.

There's issues with a game that aren't subjective on some level? Even The Games That Should Not Be Named had fans.

I really think you're reading too much into the word hate here, and it really feels like you're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say 'D&D was bad because XYZ', or 'D&D is bad because XYZ and I want to play ABC'.

You're acting like I don't spend time trying to build up other games, I do. But this isn't the 'Beast RPG You've ever played' thread, I know because I post in that one as well. It's the 'Worst RPG You've played' thread, and if that's D&D because it stops me from playing anything else? It's the thread to put exactly that opinion in.

This all started because you said, in essence, 'lots of people dislike D&D because it's popular, and that's quite juvenile'. I replied 'there's valid reasons to dislike D&D because of it's popularity, such as the fact that it can stop you from playing other games'.

So where did I 'act as if something is horrible to drive people away from it'? Or encourage that? I might have engaged in some D&D bashing within this thread, but I believe that that has been in the spirit of the thread. In a thread about RPGs we don't like I commented on an RPG I've grown to dislike and gave my reason In that case this reason is 'it stops me from platying anything else.

[Jason]

Is D&D really stopping you from playing anything else?

What you are describing seems to be finding yourself unable to get a group together to play a different game you want to play more than D&D, and then deciding to hate D&D because that's what the people you asked said they wanted to play instead. Is that basically correct?

If so, that's not a valid reason to dislike D&D. You're blaming your preferred game's inability to attract potential players on D&D's popularity. That's basically envy.

[Cluedrew]

On D&D being the Worst: Well arguing for D&D as the worst system doesn't hold much ground if you do it on terms of its stand alone quality. But the originally the statement was (to my memory, I couldn't find it again) "worst for the hobby as a whole, D&D". Now this is a really hard thing to measure. What damage is done by people not branching out? I feel it is something but its not something I can put a number to. Also having a common language and popular icon is good (but wouldn't two or three be better?) so that is some benefit, how does that compare.

To Jason: I don't blame D&D for that. I don't think highly of those who refuse to branch out, but around here there are a lot more who have reasons that I understand and it comes down to a matter of taste. I just wanted to get that out of the way before moving onto the next point.

I would like to play a campaign of Blades in the Dark but I haven't put a lot of effort into putting one together (I don't have a lot of extra time right now). So if I was getting all angry sure that would hold. But say I have been putting in real effort for several years and I still hadn't gotten a campaign together, well at a certain point it becomes "it's your fault because if you could fix the problem it wouldn't be a problem" and that is victim blaming. So I would check what people have tried before writing it off.

[Telok]

Is D&D really stopping you from playing anything else?

Yes. Over the past two decades the only time I was in a game other that D&D or Starfinder (which is 3.p in fake-space with "lazors") was when I ran the game. There are a good 8 or so games that I've run but not gotten to play.

Wait, I lie. Almost exactly 18 years ago a ShadowRun game I played in ended.

[Jason]

Yes. Over the past two decades the only time I was in a game other that D&D or Starfinder (which is 3.p in fake-space with "lazors") was when I ran the game. There are a good 8 or so games that I've run but not gotten to play.

Wait, I lie. Almost exactly 18 years ago a ShadowRun game I played in ended.

Running is more fun anyway.
My group has had a lot more variety then that, but we also play a lot of D&D.

[KineticDiplomat]

Yes, my original reply essentially came down to: no, it’s not as bad/cringeworthy as many, but it is a mediocre game that is choking out the marketspace for games that are often quite good.

Think of it as the big tree that might have been responsible for anchoring the soil around here, but is now blocking the sunlight to any new growth while it ossifies.

———

On which note, yes, it does make it actually harder to play the better games. It actively eats up people’s time and commitment, both in a direct sense and because it is such a data heavy rule set (I still recall a post on this forum where people mocked a cleric for not knowing that being a life-soul warlock in a certain build would obvi be a better healer) that it discourages people from learning other systems - which are, sometimes elegant, sometimes simple, sometimes complex, but require far less specific rote knowledge to make work.

[noob]

Yes, my original reply essentially came down to: no, it’s not as bad/cringeworthy as many, but it is a mediocre game that is choking out the marketspace for games that are often quite good.

Think of it as the big tree that might have been responsible for anchoring the soil around here, but is now blocking the sunlight to any new growth while it ossifies.

———

On which note, yes, it does make it actually harder to play the better games. It actively eats up people’s time and commitment, both in a direct sense and because it is such a data heavy rule set (I still recall a post on this forum where people mocked a cleric for not knowing that being a life-soul warlock in a certain build would obvi be a better healer) that it discourages people from learning other systems - which are, sometimes elegant, sometimes simple, sometimes complex, but require far less specific rote knowledge to make work.

If dnd was not here it might be another rpg that would take the space.
I think the problem is more with how role playing is a group activity which is sparsely enough practised for making the possibility of spreading people between rpgs hard without making many people unable to find groups.(unlike sports)
The fact that people often wants to keep the same group multiple sessions for a given rpg instead of swapping players around randomly makes running rpgs even harder.

However I think it would make rpgs more commonly played if dnd 6e was a rule light system fitting in one page so that people introduced to dnd would not think "too long did not read" then walk away from rpgs in general.

[EggKookoo]

If dnd was not here it might be another rpg that would take the space.

Yes. There's a mistaken (false?) premise going on here that if it weren't for TTRPG X (D&D), people would be spreading their time out playing lots of other games. But it doesn't work that way. People would just gravitate to the New Big Thing. So it's fair to blame D&D for being the Current Big Thing but that's mostly independent of its quality as a game. You're really complaining about how people flock to things, rather than the things themselves.

[Jason]

However I think it would make rpgs more commonly played if dnd 6e was a rule light system fitting in one page so that people introduced to dnd would not think "too long did not read" then walk away from rpgs in general.

I don't want to hang around with people who think more than one page is "too long" to read.

Any argument that "D&D is taking all my player's available game time so I hate it" is just as valid an argument for hating any other activity people might choose to pursue instead of TTRPGs. Video games, books, tv shows, movies, sports, hiking, date night, spending time with your kids, etc.

The Giant's 4e vs. 3e comic in Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tails ended up saying something very similar.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yes. There's a mistaken (false?) premise going on here that if it weren't for TTRPG X (D&D), people would be spreading their time out playing lots of other games. But it doesn't work that way. People would just gravitate to the New Big Thing. So it's fair to blame D&D for being the Current Big Thing but that's mostly independent of its quality as a game. You're really complaining about how people flock to things, rather than the things themselves.

That's not strictly speaking true, there could be a number of different but competitive RPGs, likely still a handful but without a clear dominator in the same way that D&D is. At a best guess if D&D was to disappear overnight we'd have Vampire: the Masquerade, Call of Cthulhu, Cyberpunk/Shadowrun, Pathfinder 2e, and possibly one or two others poised to become the 'big names'. And that might honestly be better for the industry thank having a 'the TTRPG'.

Video games have multiple franchises known to the public, like Fortnite, Mario, Sonic, CoD, and other ones I'm not going to list. Even board games have a few more games known to the public, even if that's on.y 'Draughts, Chess, Monopoly, and Settlers of Catan'. Why are TTRPGs inherently limited to just one big name?

[Vahnavoi]

D&D isn't just the current big thing, though. It's always been the big thing globally, with only few local exceptions. It's a weird conundrum: it's sad when people play only D&D, but without D&D they probably wouldn't play any roleplaying games at all.

A big chunk of this pie is marketing and franchise-building, though, and exists beyond mere game mechanical considerations. In fact, at least since late 1st edition AD&D, marketing and franchise-building, the things which keep D&D afloat and valuable as brand, have directly interfered with its game design and not always for the better.

So it isn't just that D&D is keeping people from playing better games... D&D is keeping itself from becoming as good as it could be.

[Max_Killjoy]

D&D isn't just the current big thing, though. It's always been the big thing globally, with only few local exceptions. It's a weird conundrum: it's sad when people play only D&D, but without D&D they probably wouldn't play any roleplaying games at all.

A big chunk of this pie is marketing and franchise-building, though, and exists beyond mere game mechanical considerations. In fact, at least since late 1st edition AD&D, marketing and franchise-building, the things which keep D&D afloat and valuable as brand, have directly interfered with its game design and not always for the better.

So it isn't just that D&D is keeping people from playing better games... D&D is keeping itself from becoming as good as it could be.

That's often true of products or services in general.

Not only do the biggest players in each space tend to be of secondary quality compared to other players, it's the effort to maintain that "biggest player" status that often pushes quality to a secondary status on the list of priorities.

[Vahnavoi]

Yes. I'm pretty sure that if I'd studied more economics, I'd know a snazzy name for the phenomenom. Probably [Someone's] Law or some such.