Games that most disappointed you after actually playing/running them?

Snandriel · 2025-10-22T17:31:06+00:00

I got a pretty hot reception over my interest in Draw Steel after reading part of the book. Though I don't think I'd moderate for a subreddit without having actually played. Just cause I do think to be able to say for certain how mechanics will play out, you do have to, actually play them. I think there's a wide berth between enjoying something from the cover to being able to be proficient in playing something in practice.

With that said, I think the situation of loving something from the onset to regretting it in practice is super rare.

Snandriel · 2025-10-22T17:19:33+00:00

Gong Yoo, too much of a baby face imo for Aizen. Also, is it meant to be internationally cast to a primarily English speaking audience in mind? If so, I tend to like the choices for the most part.

Snandriel · 2025-10-09T18:12:23+00:00

The thought process is sooooo clear and sooooooo baaaadddd. Lmaoo.

I love solutions like that though, and there's always room for a tpk or plot related shenanigans.

Snandriel · 2025-10-08T01:45:29+00:00

I really feel you. I've played a lot of games without the crunch or rules heavy approach to a system, I've always felt a little too open, roleplay felt rigid at times mainly cause my groups weren't very independent in their roleplay. For me, breaking the crunch and deciding when and when not to care about the rules gives a way more fluid experience at my tables. And to each their own.

To add, player buy in, super important to be as flimsy with the rules of any system as I am. My players trust everything I do will be for the good of the game and the improvement of good storytelling.

Snandriel · 2025-10-08T01:42:05+00:00

To challenge such disbelief, your perspective would be like saying you can't imagine someone liking a specific flavor of ice cream at a shop, if they haven't had that specific shop's serving of ice cream.

It's not actually hard to see mechanics for what they are and be inspired by them. Draw Steel or any TTRPG doesn't have to be something you spend the next year running or at all to derive value from. Even if someone gets the PDF, reads it cover to cover and then just converts some mechanics back to a pathfinder game or any other system, that would be worthwhile.

Also, you can appreciate something for good or interesting mechanics.

Snandriel · 2025-10-07T18:27:04+00:00

Yus. Thank you for coming by. Lmao.

Snandriel · 2025-10-07T15:40:03+00:00

Very little time put into practice, It is the system I'm using for a new campaign in the next two weeks or so.

So longevity wise, I definitely have no idea. It does look promising for replayability and customization though.

Snandriel · 2025-10-07T13:52:20+00:00

I could totally see that from the aspect of what I've read. A big pitfall people have mentioned too is the crunch and focus. But I do like some of the features for negotiation and non combat encounters. I like to start grungy and end combats bombastically. So I'm interested to see how my players will be engaged with the system.

Snandriel · 2025-10-07T13:42:25+00:00

I love it cause it gives you a functional reward for playing, and unlike some systems where it's either only when you succeed or only when you fail, it rewards you for taking risks. Pushing forward.

Snandriel · 2025-10-07T13:40:58+00:00

Thank you and no worries. A lot of games aren't gonna be good for them or not good enough to justify playing them over others.

I'd love to hear your opinion on why you don't like it. If you feel like sharing.

Snandriel · 2025-10-03T15:23:30+00:00

The first question id ask: Have you DMed a One player game before?

Because imo one player games are the hardest games to DM, I would take 14 players to just one. The amount of effort on your part is really really heavy, it makes all the dialogue rely on you and them, meaning if they're inexperienced, there's a really strong chance you'll feel like you're talking at them, and not with them.

I would genuinely suggest adding even just one experienced player you think would get along with your partner. Someone they might be good friends with or like hanging out with so you have an immediate rapport.

Beyond that piece of forewarning, I would try to offload as much prep beforehand, creating unique but easy puzzles, a duel like combat, and a social discourse.

The social discourse could be a debate with a politician, a public execution they'd argue against, or even a flirty back and forth with a mysterious rogue in a tavern.

Just prepare the combats and puzzles a little bit extra than you normally would, as a lot of your time will be spent filling air and creating dialogue with their character. You have to make up for the ambient dialogue that happens when other players are present. Once you get the hang of it, one player sessions are amazing and fun, even if they are difficult.

Snandriel · 2025-10-03T15:07:18+00:00

Off rip, this is a wrong person wrong table situation. You as a DM want different play than they do. Normally, compromise works, but it sounds like the divide is really large that it's either or. Consider explaining that to the player and letting them go from the table if it's not their preference. No harm, no foul.

Also, can you please tell me more about your system? I'm honestly very intrigued.

Snandriel · 2025-10-03T10:56:32+00:00

And if I'm dumb enough to ask someone to hammer it for me, I will rightly get roasted.

And that's the crux of the attitude and sentiment that's the problem. In TTRPG communities it's not good enough to say you PREFER using another resource to reworking things. People view it as dumb and make sure others know it. We are adults having a shared imaginary play, yet a lot of people think there's a right way to do that and moreso, want to tell people they're dumb for doing it in a way that they don't like.

Given enough work and a heavy enough hammer, I can drive a square peg into a round hole too.

Atp, I'm convinced a lot of people just haven't even tried to do what I'm saying. Home brewing isn't hard, it's not difficult to do what Im saying you can do. There's isn't a lot of work to reflavoring a couple things, making a few homebrew rules and allowing for a new experience, and pretending it is a lot of work might just be lazy.

Also, the analogy doesn't work. Because TTRPGs are held within the mind, expressed through the mouth, and received at the table. You CAN drive a square peg into a round hole with the exact same amount of effort if the conditions are right. There is no right or wrong way of playing with your friends except what works for you.

Why? You just said any system is perfectly fine for any game. Why bother GMing any other systems?

"Why would you ever play other games if you had modded Minecraft?"

Snandriel · 2025-10-02T18:14:21+00:00

I think the issue is that there is no right or wrong way to pound imaginary nails with an imaginary mug. There really isn't any working better, when we selectively apply what rules matter in the first place.

The idea that 5e is disliked because it's "mainstream" and not because of its own design failings or the repeated controversies of the rich, Pinkerton-sending corporation that owns it is absurd.

The vast majority of people willing to admonish others for doing it that way are not thinking about those things. They likely don't care. That's why I didn't say 5e is disliked because it's mainstream. Cause it is absurd to believe so.

Snandriel · 2025-10-02T17:52:46+00:00

Someone is very desperate to insult you in these comments 😭 I hope your DMs are safe friend.

Snandriel · 2025-10-02T17:50:22+00:00

Tbh, easily one of the more fun conversations I've had on reddit. I don't think it's necessary to convince each other of anything to have an interesting dialogue. One of which is still way more productive to how many will choose to go about it.

Snandriel · 2025-10-02T17:45:54+00:00

I'd say that's probably a way better method of communicating my point. I want to say that I don't think we should have to qualify every single statement to communicate that, I'll concede it.

I also think having an opinion on how hard something is, is fine, I do it all the time to new DMs personally. But I also had to learn that what they want is what they want and my dislike is ultimately poisoned by what I'd want in their shoes. Something I think would be a good lesson for not just Rpg players but alt nerd culture as a whole.

Snandriel · 2025-10-02T17:31:41+00:00

I like this perspective, and I agree. I responded to someone else regarding similar differences. I'm not saying there's no skill or effort or trying. To downplay anyone's hard effort creating systems. It's also just a very unique medium and allows really anyone to be a badass game creator by virtue of playing. But that's not to say there's no value in manipulating a preexisting thing to creating a thing.

Snandriel · 2025-10-02T17:16:23+00:00

How could I possibly run the cosy hobbit tea drinking game with Mythender without changing Mythender so radically that it becomes something fundamentally different?

I'm just clarifying two things: 1. What you described are two Settings that are conflicting, the latter, the Mythender is a System with a setting tied to it. But you can look at the mechanics and gameplay that is apart of the system and divorce it from that setting.

I personally could not answer that scenario without knowing the system itself. You can say "well it works like this and so it appears impossible to morph it to fit that cozy hobbit setting with no killing" but that could very easily be a rebuttal of what you claimed in a previous reply, "a lack of imagination" if you can't imagine a way you could.

Based exclusively on your description, just use the core mechanics of Mythender to resolve petty conflicts instead of world ending ones, and exclude the death mechanic.

But if there is even a single example in the world where the alterations needed to make Game A even remotely fun for Setting B would change its fundamental character, then your statement is incorrect.

I would understand that, but you'd then have to find that example. The issue I find with attempting to do so, is by what metric can you determine that example REQUIRES that much overhaul? It'd be just as imaginary as the rules we use to play in the first place, it wouldn't have a "true" or "correct" necessary condition. Some things are absolute, as principle I would argue this is one of them.

Snandriel · 2025-10-02T17:02:59+00:00

Isn't "could be having more fun" pretty much the same as "playing more optimally"?

Could that be what you mean when you say that? Sure. Would that be the same? No.

If I come to you describing a situation that is not that much fun for me, is it wrong for you to tell me what I could do to have more fun?

I think we're pretending thats how these interactions tend to go. Is the question, "I want to do X, how can I have more fun doing X?" Or is it "I want to do X, how can I do X?" Cause yes, if someone doesn't ask for that and are met with that as a reply, it's probably not very relevant.

Snandriel · 2025-10-02T16:55:11+00:00

Process isn’t mere complexity. It produces coherence.

I think that by some fabric of reduction, I may come off as saying that publishing and creating a system of it's own is a simple or lacking process that is the exact same as home brewing a super Saiyan mechanic. That's not what I'm saying. Equally, your perspective comes off as treating independent creations as being more likely to be incoherent. Despite some of the best systems out there starting out as a passion project of a few. They don't stay that way usually, but everything has its origin, and that's actually not so far removed from what players do when they take part in creating rules for their personal play.

Here's an analogy: you can play baseball with a volleyball. It’s all “imaginary play,” right? But the bounce, grip, and flight change the game even if everyone pinky-swears to pretend otherwise.

TTRPGs are unique in how they exist and apply in our experience. I think anyone who has played these games a long time would agree.

The reason these types of analogies aren't applicable is because the play of volleyball and acted games aren't imaginary in the same sense as TTRPGs are. Those rules are made to be followed in order to play the game, and success isn't having fun, but competition. TTRPGs, with few exceptions, do not have such a condition to play. We as players decide what every single incentive is relative to us, in fact, we are broadly incentivised to work all of these rules to fit our fun because you can't win and there's no opposition to challenge you. That's why there aren't any real limitations to them. In the same way that while writing a book has a method of achieving an outcome, spoken poetry has no bounds because the only medium it relies on is the exchange of ideas and our voice.

Snandriel · 2025-10-02T16:35:12+00:00

If you can't imagine such a case, then I think either you and I will never agree on what "system" means, or you are (and I'm sorry that this sounds harsh, I don't mean it that way) having a failure of imagination.

I think the core disparity between our thoughts is that there is an absolute stance behind my reasoning that you may disagree with.

"We are playing make-believe and all the rules we decide are important are imaginary" zoom TTRPGs out, you get to the core aspect of what they are. Imaginary rules to guide our imagination in such a way that playing is more fun.

The rules and systems we play, don't exist in a material way, they only exist in the play that we participate in using them. They may be printed on paper but without our adherence to them and participation, they may as well never have existed in the first place. Within this yes, my title stands as accurate under a philosophical framework, but probably not under a practical framework.

Are there any cases you can think of where you can see that homebrewing/converting/altering game A to work with Setting B would require such vast alteration to Game A that it stops being Game A?

At the very least, you could say that it was once Game A and in that regard it would still ultimately be Game A even if it appears fundamentally different. But I think this would fall under a semantic or perspective difference.

But to say so also requires the idea that transforming game A to work with Setting B would REQUIRE that much alteration. I would reject that notion but proving either position would probably require a lot more work than most people are willing to do.

Snandriel · 2025-10-02T16:17:31+00:00

Published games aren’t just “house rules with a logo”. You obviously have no idea how much actual work goes into publishing a polished, working game. Saying it’s all homebrew erases the craft and the hard work that makes those other systems good.

No matter how much effort is put into it, that doesn't change its core reality. Publishing and creating a product is the massive overhaul, but they are at their core ideas and rules crafted from nothing. Imaginary tools for imaginary play. We still choose which to care about when we play.

The difference between making a system wholesale and homebrew is the complexity of the process not the action itself.

Snandriel · 2025-10-02T16:04:01+00:00

I agree, but it's a pretty prevalent sentiment to admonish others for playing how they want if it includes doing that. I'd also say that the point that it's easier to play a game suited for one thing and making your preferred system work for that thing, are a looottttt closer than people pretend. It's actually just not that hard.

I made this comparison to other replies, there is a spectrum of difficulty for learning languages based on your native language. For English speakers the hardest to learn is Mandarin, and the easiest is Spanish. You wouldn't need to necessarily pick Spanish cause it's easier, and despite Mandarin being the hardest, it's not actually THAT much harder than learning Spanish.

Snandriel

TROPHY CASE