Anyone think they can truly tell how good a RPG is by simply

[Treebore]

reading it?

I used to think so, but eventually I had lots of people telling me what they thought of various RPG's, without ever actually playing. Then with all the reviewers who gave reviews only based on their reading it, etc...

Well, what I found out according to them, is a number of RPG's I love, I should hate based on their opinions based on reading only. My most recent example of this is Cthulhu Tech. According to a lot of forum people I should hate that RPG, that it is a broken mess and the setting makes no sense, etc...

My son and I played it at a convention and had fun. So we bought the books, 3 of them at first, read through them and ran a few game sessions of it, and we had a lot of fun! The rules worked fine, the setting material seemed to work just fine to us, and it was a lot of fun and we are looking forward to running or playing it again. We also now own all the books.

Another example I remember seeing a lot of forum posters lambasting is this game called Castles and Crusades...

I could give other examples but I think I will save those for later.

So what do you think? Do you really believe people can make good decisions on a RPG by just reading it over?

[Arduin]

So what do you think? Do you really believe people can make good decisions on a RPG by just reading it over?

That all depends. If one has the experience and intellectual capacity to mentally visualize what one studies, yes. If no, probably not.

[Treebore]

So what do you think? Do you really believe people can make good decisions on a RPG by just reading it over?

That all depends. If one has the experience and intellectual capacity to mentally visualize what one studies, yes. If no, probably not.

How do you know if your actually good at doing that? Its not IQ. My wife and Daughter have IQ's well above 140, and they can't do it. So I'd guess that would be more along the lines of having good talent at visualization.

[ArgoForg]

I know that I had a few friends, who, after looking at C&C said that the math SIEGE checks didn't work out at higher levels, and that totally colored their opinion of it. The few times I've ever played it or GM'd it, I obviously thought it was fun and enjoyable, easy to understand and never had an issue with the math not 'working'.

I think a lot of people will sometimes read for comprehension and make a snap judgment, and have to be proven otherwise. For instance, I still don't have an opinion of Savage Worlds... I've tried to read through the Explorer's Handbook and for whatever reason, it hasn't "stuck", so I haven't considered it in my top 5 yet. But I imagine if I played it, I would find it to be a great game and would likely change my opinion.

[Relaxo]

I think you're on to something, Tree.

[Omote]

Some games are a total mess. But, a good GM can remove most of those problems with great storytelling, action, and excitement. Dice rolls and mechanics are in fact secondary to any RPGs purpose.

~O

[Arduin]

So what do you think? Do you really believe people can make good decisions on a RPG by just reading it over?

That all depends. If one has the experience and intellectual capacity to mentally visualize what one studies, yes. If no, probably not.

How do you know if your actually good at doing that?

Only trial & error can tell you if the ability is there. One has to have the ability to mentally run processes that one has studied. I also do it with business processes when I consult C level execs.

[Rigon]

I can usually tell by a read through if it is a game I want to give a try. For example, when I read through DnD 4e, I knew I had no desire to try it. It had too many fiddlely parts for my taste. Whereas, C&C was the game I was trying to create for myself when I discovered it those many years ago. Now, that being said, if I had the chance to try a game out, I'd at least give it a fair shake regardless of what I thought when I read it.

R-

[kreider204]

I agree with Treebore wholeheartedly, with some exceptions in really extreme cases, such as games with rules that are obviously broken (e.g., internally inconsistent). However, I also agree with Rigon that I can usually tell simply by reading if it's a game that I want to play, one that's going to suit my personal tastes. Having said that, I'm usually willing to give even those at least one actually playtest before deciding for sure.

[DeadReborn]

For me, reading it isn't enough. I have to sit down and play to make an honest decision. It is also the only way I can fully understand the game and its mechanics. It just doesn't "sink in" untill I give it a whirl.

[Treebore]

Yeah, I have learned that just reading an RPG does not really tell me how good it is. Early in my RPG days I thought a read through would tell me everything I needed to know about an RPG. My first experience that eventually taught me I was wrong is Shadowrun. I read through that thing, looked at the D6 dice pools, etc... and decided it was nothing I was interested in. Fortunately a couple of years alter I got a player into my group who loved Shadowrun. He eventually talked me into giving it a try. I did, and the system did have some major problems, particularly with magic, but over all it worked well and I had a heck of a lot of fun playing it.

So that was my big eye opener that reading does not tell you everything.

Warhammer was another big one for me. I really did not see how its character advancement system could work well, and for years I did not meet anyone who played and loved the RPG. Decades, actually. Then a couple of years ago Kayolan talked me into giving 2E a try. Now I am a fan, own most of the 2E books and a half dozen or so of the 1E stuff. I still do not like how much blocking, dodging etc... slows down play when characters get that advanced, which is much the same problem I have with Paladium Fantasy, but until the game gets there, I really enjoy Warhammer.

Legend of the 5 Rings was another I did not think I would like, but about 8 years ago I finally ran into someone who loved it and ran it for me. I've been a huge fan ever since, buying everything for the RPG, and it is also a favorite with my kids. I would say my daughter loves it best out of all the RPG's we play.

So yeah, if I listened to the opinion of others I would have missed out on a lot of fun. Saved a lot of money too, but thats another topic.

[Rigon]

I'm not saying I wouldn't try a game, but based on a read through, I can pretty much figure out if i'm going to invest time and resources into a game system. Heck, I'm willing to try just about any game at least once.

R-

[Treebore]

I'm not saying I wouldn't try a game, but based on a read through, I can pretty much figure out if i'm going to invest time and resources into a game system. Heck, I'm willing to try just about any game at least once.

R-

To kind of expand on that, I have found that to give a RPG a "fair shake" it takes about 3 sessions to start seeing how it all comes together. Not always. There are a fair number of RPG's I liked immediately, such as Cthulhu Tech, Eclipse Phase, Mouse Guard, Dresden Files (FATE), and CORTEX. Others took a while for me to start to "get", such as Aces and Eights, Shadowrun, Legend of the 5 Rings, Warhammer and Twilight 2000.

I am also not saying there is not an RPG I don't like. There are a fair number I do not like, and by that I mean do not like enough to play them, unless I have no other options. Such as Boot Hill, 4E D&D, Pathfinder and 3E. I can have fun playing any of them, but there are many other RPG's I would much rather spend my time playing. I have yet to try out a RPG I will not play under any circumstances. The closest would be White Wolf's Vampire, but that is more because of the setting assumptions than anything. The system is pretty good. Oddly the CCG is probably my favorite CCG of all.

[Sir Ironside]

Sure, but maybe I'm no the other end of the scale with Nobilis. I wanted to play, it was one of the best rpg's ever written (IMO) but I couldn't get my head around the rules. So, I have no idea if it played well or not, and I dearly wanted to play it, I just didn't know how.

Another example is Everway. The moment I read through it I wanted to play it, badly. Unlike Nobilis it was easy to understand and was a joy to play.

White Wolfs Prometheus was another game that was well written and an inspiration. The rules were the standard WW rules set (If you liked it or not) but it screamed to be played one-on-one and not with a group. It wasn't so much that I didn't want to GM a solo adventure, it was just difficult to find anyone that would. I once played Top Secret solo and though it was fun, it had a very different dynamic than playing in a group. Socializing is one of the boons of rpg's and you lose that with solo games. Plus, I found that the solo game was much more serious, in tone, than gaming in a group.

[Treebore]

Heh, I have never played Nobilis, Everway or Prometheus. I have been aware of them, especially Prometheus, but just have not had the opportunity to check them out. Geist is another WW RPG that has had my attention, as well as a couple of others, such as Witch Hunter. Just not enough time to have the opportunity to try them out. For all the RPG's I do own, there are more that I do not.

[serleran]

I know I can.

For me, the rules are as important as the taste of coal.

What makes me want to play the game, even if I think the rules are worthless, is how well the game captures some element of interest.

[Treebore]

I know I can.

For me, the rules are as important as the taste of coal.

What makes me want to play the game, even if I think the rules are worthless, is how well the game captures some element of interest.

Totally understand, that is what made me fall in love with Legend of the 5 Rings, their mechanics really do a lot to add flavor to the setting, and it took me a while to see that. Aces and Eights is another one that worked out that way.

[Lord Dynel]

How do you know if your actually good at doing that? Its not IQ. My wife and Daughter have IQ's well above 140, and they can't do it. So I'd guess that would be more along the lines of having good talent at visualization.

I don't know if it has anything to do with IQ, Tree. My wife's one of the smartest people I've ever met. Her IQ has got to be up there. She teaches math. Hard math. She thinks partial differential equations and linear algebra are fun.

But she has trouble visualizing things. I give her verbal instructions on how to get from Point A to Point B and she sometimes has trouble. Go figure.

I think it takes a different part of the brain to "play out" an rpg in one's head and determine if the mechanics are going to be good and/or if it will lead to a fun game. Like serl, I can do it, too. I don't mean to sound like a braggart but it comes fairly easy to me. When reading a game I think about how the game captures the genre it's trying to replicate and I look for elements of the game/rules that I find interesting and possibly unique (or new to me). Things that make it stand out.

What I don't do is try to sell someone else on a game that I've never tried. At least outside my home table. I wouldn't try to recommend, or even review, a game from my read through of the rules. Even if I can understand it and makes sense of it in my head, I don't think I could truly convey that to others. I could do a good job, I think, but I feel there would be stuff in my assessment that couldn't quite begin to relate. And without me playing it, to be certain what I read (and how I felt about it) was correct, I don't think I'd try. That's a little presumptuous in my personal opinion.

[Treebore]

I'm willing to listen to people I game with, but that is because after gaming together for a while you pick up on each others likes and dislikes, so have a pretty targeted idea as to what your fellow players will likely like or hate about other RPG's. That is how I have been introduced to most of the RPG's I now play.

[serleran]

There are two things I look at first -- character creation and combat. If either looks to take too long to deal with, I usually skip playing the game. But, I might steal ideas from it. For example... Dangerous Journeys (Mythus). Way too complex for character creation but there are a lot of useful ideas. Shadowrun, likewise, can be a hardass in creation, but it makes it easier with Archetypes if one just wants to jump in rather than having a completely customized PC... however, I tend to break my own "rule" where it concerns SR because I like almost everything else about it, so style trumps execution there.

In essence, I look at every game as a resource or tool. None of them work perfectly. They can't expect what I'm going to do to them. But, what they can do is bend well enough that I can do what I want and not have to reinvent every wheel of the game to do it. Some accomplish that better than others... C&C, Alternity, pretty much anything using percentages (especially Basic Role Play) etc, etc.

I guess, at the end of it, the game is meaningless to the play.

[alcyone]

These days, time is the main issue to keep me from adopting a new game. If not time, then setting, presentation, inspiration is the most important. System is usually the last thing I consider. If system doesn't support setting, it will require work, and then we are back at time.

In the eighties, it seemed like every new game came with its own system, and I didn't have internet forums to blow a system full of holes anyway; I bought it because the cover looked cool or it was some kind of setting idea I thought I wanted to play. Almost every system I have tried works for at least one session; unless they are terrifically broken, which seems pretty rare in published materials, they probably will even support a campaign for quite a while, so it's not something I spend a lot of time thinking about unless I plan to make it my primary system.

[redwullf]

I can tell how good an RPG is by simply holding it to my forehead and diving it's levels of fun, playability, and required skill.

[Arduin]

Some games are a total mess. But, a good GM can remove most of those problems with great storytelling, action, and excitement. Dice rolls and mechanics are in fact secondary to any RPGs purpose.

~O

Therein lies "the rub". I can only tell mechanically how it plays by studying the rules (not a casual perusal mind you). A good GM can do wonders for a poor rule set. The opposite is also true.

[Treebore]

I imagine that is true, but I have apparently also been lucky. While I have grown to like RPG's people have claimed on various internet forums are a "mess", such as a Castles and Crusades, either I am a good GM without really realizing what I am doing to be "good", or these RPG's some people say are a "mess" really just are not a mess.

Personally, I am going with thinking those people just miserably failed their reading checks. While I can see and understand many of these RPG's simply are not their "thing", I have failed to see how the mechanics have been these horrible messes they have claimed them to be. Cthulthu Tech being the most recent example I have personally experienced. According to internet posters the rules are unplayable and the4 setting is totally incoherent. My reading of it saw none of that. Then our play experiences not only failed to reveal any such degree of problems, but that the play experience was actually really cool and a lot of fun.

So when I go by my personal experiences, there are a lot of people out there who are a lot more than a little bit wrong. So all I can attribute it to is being that their reading comprehension is really very poor. I can't think of any other reason as to how I failed to see, on my own, how cool Shadowrun and Warhammer really are. I pretty much literally needed to have someone who loved those RPG's to hold my hand and show me just how well they play and how much fun they are. This is with my testing above college level on my reading comprehension skills.

So that is why I have developed the opinion that simply reading an RPG is not enough. It has to be played to really know. So that is what I do whenever I can. Until I can do that I just assume an RPG is good. Especially when I see people posting that they have fun with it, despite how others claim its a mess.

While I have by no means come close to playing every RPG out there, I have yet to find an RPG that actually sucks. Including one of the most disparaged of all time. No, not FATAL, I haven't even read that one. The other I not only read it, but run a very fun year long campaign with. In my opinion it holds up, rules wise, far better than RIFTS. Plus we just had a blast with it. I would say considerably more fun than we had with RIFTS, which in my opinion is the next closest RPG to the one that has received so much "hate". Yet RIFTS has many more fans. I think its problem is you just have to be in the right mood to play a power gamers wet dream, on super mega steroids. If your not in the mood to do that kind of gaming, and have a system that handles that kind of gaming, your simply never going to like it. Heck, I haven't been in that "mood" for over 15 years now, but I've been thinking about it.

So I am now at a point where I refuse to write off a game until I get in at least 3 good play sessions, and see for myself. More if the GM doesn't know the system either.

I should have known from the beginning to not trust reviews. I rarely agree with movie and book reviews, good or bad, so why would I have thought that RPG reviews/opinions would be any more reliable? So now I handle RPG's the same way, I wait until I find out for myself how it is, which is why I go to conventions that play a wide variety of games, and stay away from the ones that are only all about Pathfinder and 4E. Not to mention board games. Gotta have some board games too.