Troll Lord Games

they just got to be "too much"? Meaning there were just so many books you stopped buying them?

I have a few like that. Pathfinder. Shadowrun. Mongoose Traveller. 3E I didn't stop buying until near the end, but that was due more to simply being burned out. When everyone sold off their collections when 4E was announced, I picked up all the books on the cheap.

I've pretty much avoided buying RPGs like that in the first place, for just those reasons. But on a related note, one reason why I stopped buying Savage Worlds settings books is that there were so damn many of them, and I knew I'd never get around to actually playing all of them.

I quit 3E/Pathfinder because of the sheer amount of min-maxing, and rules arguements that the system created.
I quit Shadowrun 3E/4E pretty much for the same reason.

With these two systems, every additional book added more and more of the same things, presented in different ways. And, it also added more and more powerful abilities. In order to make the feats and special abilities unique, the abilities had to be better, faster, bigger, stronger. It made the game unfun, and a process of madness that I will never go back to. I think the final stroke for me was when one of my high-level parties, level 16-18 or so, encountered Orcus and a host of about 2 dozen undead. The battle in real time took 5-6+ hours. The players all had years of experience in this game, and it still took that long. Not to mention the hours and hours of pregame setup to this big, bad, evil guy battle which I had to put into it. Yuck. Never again.

The same is true with Shadowrun, but a bit less due to the rules bloat (though it seems to be gettting quite bad), and more to due with the cumbersome system in general. Fast-paced, and sleek cyberpunk SR is not. It's heavy, slow and uninteresting to the nth degree.

~O

Omote wrote:The same is true with Shadowrun, but a bit less due to the rules bloat (though it seems to be gettting quite bad), and more to due with the cumbersome system in general. Fast-paced, and sleek cyberpunk SR is not. It's heavy, slow and uninteresting to the nth degree.

I'm going to preface my statement by saying, I don't know if there is any cyber rpg that can successfully solve this problem.

Shadow Run does a very poor job meshing live action with cyber action. Either the person/group that is in the real world has to sit around being bored while the other person/group is in the cyber world and vise-versa. Trying to co-ordinate the two to act at the same time was always a nightmare and never really run all that well. Such a headache that you are almost encouraged not to cross pollinate the two types.

To answer the question. GURPS 4e has this problem. It does it in a degree that kind of forces you to buy supplements even if you really don't want to. Other games with system bloat or some such, I never had a problem with because it depended on what I, as the GM, would allow. It didn't work the other way were the players ran the show. Sure it sucked for them because I wasn't allowing the new rules/powers but they got over it. Not saying I never allowed supplements, I just minimized them and avoided over complicating the rules.

GURPS, on the other hand produces specialized books that you can tack onto the regular books for different genre's or styles. You could conceivably just do it yourself using the basic rules, but the amount of time spent making things and trying to balance things it just made it easier to buy the supplement. Which in turn added all these new rules and in some cases really complicated things. This started my dislike for generic rules. It works if you want to go from very different genre's over a period of time switching over and over. Now a days I'd rather just play some fantasy and let it go at that. I've also noted that rules specifically designed for a specific game makes the game better for new innovation or can do things easier than generic rules.

I love FATE, but it suffers the same fate (heh) as other generic game buy having to add new rules when moving from genre to genre, making more complications to an already elegant rules set as was seen in Starblazers and the Dresden games.

There are exceptions like EABA that is pretty good for a cross genre rules set, but if the time comes were I'd branch out to say something like sci-fi, I'll just find a game I like and use that.

So, my answer is GURPS 4e.

Omote wrote:I quit 3E/Pathfinder because of the sheer amount of min-maxing, and rules arguements that the system created.

Same here.

I also dropped 4e for a similar problem. It wasn't exactly the sheer number of books and the complexity it introduced (though that was part of it) but the sheer amount of errata made the game difficult to boot. Ignoring the errata wasn't really an option as players who used the character creator always had the eratta integrated. Each book published that one wanted to integrate necessitated more errata, etc.

The book treadmill in 4e was also odd because WOTC's product lines were often not in sync. decks of power cards often came out four months or more after the books which introduced the powers for example. Those same books would often land weeks or months after the material was available in DDI. I found this disruptive and confusing, it also meant players always had more choices if they used the digital tools, rather than print.

Kreider, I knew you had backed away from Savage Worlds a bit, but I assumed it was something other than the number of setting books. Owning the majority of the setting/plot point books isn't necessary to play SW. Admittedly, the main book doesn't stat every last weapon, creature, or piece of equipment you might need. There are the additional fantasy, horror, and supers companions, and the pdf toolkits for sci-fi and pulp (eventually to become print companions). I think SW does a pretty good job of not making you have to buy all of the other books.

I don't stop playing because there are "too many" books. I see that as a strength, in fact. I quit playing games because they suck, or I get bored with them, or I find another game that does the same "thing" but in a more palatable manner or one that is easier to explain to those who have never seen it. Now, if the rules become overwhelming, as Rifts became, I'll cut out a lot but then I feel as if I'm not "giving it its due" so I will then stop playing it and convert to something else... why not have SAMAS C&C PCs?

tylermo wrote: Kreider, I knew you had backed away from Savage Worlds a bit, but I assumed it was something other than the number of setting books.

It was; it had nothing to do with the number of setting books.

tylermo wrote: Owning the majority of the setting/plot point books isn't necessary to play SW.

I know; I agree.

tylermo wrote: Admittedly, the main book doesn't stat every last weapon, creature, or piece of equipment you might need. There are the additional fantasy, horror, and supers companions, and the pdf toolkits for sci-fi and pulp (eventually to become print companions).

Yep, I have those; they're great.

tylermo wrote: I think SW does a pretty good job of not making you have to buy all of the other books.

I agree again.

I think you misunderstood my post - we don't disagree on any particular point. I didn't stop buying or playing SW because of the number of setting books. I stopped by SW settings books at one point because there were more than I was ever going to play. Those are two different things. I said the latter, I think you thought I said the former. If I wasn't clear, my apologies.

Yeah, that is why I quit buying too. More books that I was pretty certain I would never get to use. So why buy them? Now if I was actually running or playing the above mentioned games and something came up to where a book I had not bought had something in it that would be relevant to the gaming I was actually doing, then I'd buy that book.

Especially Pathfinder. I never ran or played Pathfinder. Then one day I realized I already own a couple of thousand adventures, already own tons of monsters I can use in my C&C games, and I sure as heck do not need any of the character splat books they have put out. So the only reason I had to keep buying them is because Paizo so consistently puts out good material. So I decided to save myself $80 to $120 every month and stop buying Pathfinder products. So I did.

Sir Ironside wrote:

Omote wrote:The same is true with Shadowrun, but a bit less due to the rules bloat (though it seems to be gettting quite bad), and more to due with the cumbersome system in general. Fast-paced, and sleek cyberpunk SR is not. It's heavy, slow and uninteresting to the nth degree.

I'm going to preface my statement by saying, I don't know if there is any cyber rpg that can successfully solve this problem.

Shadow Run does a very poor job meshing live action with cyber action. Either the person/group that is in the real world has to sit around being bored while the other person/group is in the cyber world and vise-versa. Trying to co-ordinate the two to act at the same time was always a nightmare and never really run all that well. Such a headache that you are almost encouraged not to cross pollinate the two types.

The last campaign I played with SR4e, we all played Street Samurai's and warrior leaning types with no real need for Deckers or magic. The campaign revolved around mercs and fightin'. Some of the players were using other 4E books to boost their cyber and attack profiles. Eguuughhh. That game became a process nearly every gunfight with how characters were maxed out and how they could do this or that. The guy who was running the game is actually a writer for Catalyst/SR, and he was having a hard time figuring out how all of the rules jived with the equipment. A simple gun fight with 4 PCs and a handful of enemies were laborious activities. I was only playing with the core SR rules, and was quickly outclassed and overly bored by the number crunching.

I do sort of (sort of, mind you) like the rules from CP2020. It's is quicker, but the rules are quite bland.

~O

I generally save myself the hassle and only buy what I need, rather than what I want. In most cases, what I need is nothing more than the core rule book, or in the case of Castles & Crusades, rule books.

Examples:

• Classic Traveller: The Traveller Book, Book 4, Book 5, Supplement 2, Supplement 4
• Champions (4th Edition): Champions, Classic Enemies, Day of the Destroyer
• MERP: MERP Rulebook, Campaign Guidebook and Atlas to Middle-Earth, Creatures of Middle-Earth, Treasures of Middle-Earth
• Star Wars (WEG): Super Mondo, Sourcebook, Movie Trilogy Sourcebook, Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, Imperial Sourcebook, Death Star Technical Companion

Arguably the sole exception would be Star Trek RPGs. I will try and purchase anything I don't already have to fill the holes in my collection. Of course with the economy in the crapper I'm not buying much of anything right now, but I digress. In any event, it's too easy to fall in the "purchase every supplement" trap, simply because that is how our favorite companies stay in business. Treebore gives a good example in regards to Pathfinder, but all companies do this. They have to or they go under. What it all boils down to is how much willpower you have to avoid spending on things you don't need, and perhaps making do with what you already have.

I hear you, Kreider. I thought I was going to have to unleash Shane Hensley on you. Lol

TRAVELLER, kudos to the Trek rpg books. I own all but one item from Last Unicorn, all of the Decipher material, and at least 85% or more (non-miniatures) of the Fasa rpg. Live long and prosper, dude!

Sacrilegiously enough, I scaled way back on Castles and Crusades, because I'll never finish reading - much less playing - all the material I have now. Slowly but surely, I've been putting together a series of adventures which traverse the generations for over 1,000 years - the A-series works with this very nicely - and which encompasses the Tainted Lands as a major plot point.

Of course, this means that I still have all that Amazing Adventure material to read!

Read it, Yoyo. It really is Amazing.

Agreed, Axo. It's as much fun to read as most pulp adventures, and more fun than the majority of 'em.

3.X because of the insane char gen rules bloat.

4E because I was looking to purchase D&D.

PF because .. well it's basically 3.X redux.

MormonYoYoMan wrote:Sacrilegiously enough, I scaled way back on Castles and Crusades, because I'll never finish reading - much less playing - all the material I have now. Slowly but surely, I've been putting together a series of adventures which traverse the generations for over 1,000 years - the A-series works with this very nicely - and which encompasses the Tainted Lands as a major plot point.

Of course, this means that I still have all that Amazing Adventure material to read!

I've scaled back on C&C too, but thats because I already own everything, with lots of duplicates, including 19 copies of the PH.

I only buy what I want. That sounds like an over simplification, I know, but many RPG systems I own are ones that I got into on the ground floor. Sadly, I stay with many simply out of habit. I haven't gone broke, yet, so that's a good thing...right?

Pathfinder, for example, is a game that I buy only the things I want. I stayed away from most Adventure Paths (I bought the first one, the drow one, and Kingmaker) and modules (only buying the very low-level modules). I collect the regional/campaign stuff, the hardbacks, and the support stuff (the little race books, etc.).

WEG SWRPG, however, is a different story. I truly want it all, and I took a humongous step forward (from nothing, literally) a few months back when I bought someone's collection. That stuff is trickling in, and I'm not busting my hump (especially this time of year) to get it.

I guess if I had to spot a reason, I'd say disinterest at the table. nWoD is a good example of that. My table is strictly Star Wars and fantasy RPGs (at the moment) and nWoD is not on the list of games that they want to play. But on the other hand, all I really wanted was the core book anyway, to look it over. So I guess it's a mutual thing.