Greatest RPG's of all time?

[Luckymoose]

Well, what can I say, you describe a horribly boring situation that I didn't see happening with or without minis. You'd just have to try it, or one of the hundreds of different Pen and Paper RPGs on the shelves of a local geek store that don't use visual representations either. It's okay if you really put a lot of focus on visual representation of combat, and I do like that style of game too, but keep in mind that the original argument was about whether or not most games (particularly previous editions of D&D) pretty much all use visual representations, and they don't, unless you like that style of gaming in which case you can use them. It's not a bad thing to use them. Just saying that an overwhelming majority of long time players have played without visual support for decades before the latest editions, and that a majority of PnP games available on the shelves don't use them either. I think if visual representations were necessary to cater to most pen and paper fans, most games would turn towards them, but they don't. You really like the style with minis and an emphasis on tactical combat like the D&D minis game, well more power to you and have fun. Personally, I like both types of gaming.

The 'minis' game is not the same as the actual core rules which have combat based entirely on a system of grids. My point is that it's in the rules and it isn't separate from the rest of the system. It is entwined within it.

 

[Rub'Rum]

The 'minis' game is not the same as the actual core rules which have combat based entirely on a system of grids. My point is that it's in the rules and it isn't separate from the rest of the system. It is entwined within it.

I know the difference with the actual (now sort of defunct) minis game.

And yes, it's entwined with it... In the latest editions of D&D but not in a majority of pen and paper games. Your vision of good pen and paper applies to a minority of pen and paper games.

 

[Luckymoose]

I know the difference with the actual (now sort of defunct) minis game.

And yes, it's entwined with it... In the latest editions of D&D but not in a majority of pen and paper games. Your vision of good pen and paper applies to a minority of pen and paper games.

Every system I've played, with the exclusion of Risus which doesn't count, has used a similar combat system. From Wild Talents to d20 Modern, DND 3, 3.5 and 4, etc. The majority of rulesets that have any form of substance have a similar combat system.

 

[Rub'Rum]

You're just implying that any ruleset which lists a radius to a fireball needs to have a visual support. Even though that's the way you and your group has done it, it's just not necessary in most cases especially of older games. In the 90s, all the groups I played with would have sighed at the idea of pulling out rulers or something like that to measure out circles of radius and whatnot. You can play Call of Cthulu, Vampire Masquerade, GURPS, Reve (especially Reve!) or Burning Wheel and many others without visual representation of anything, D&D 1 and 2 weren't necessarily played with minis, especially since there were usually a lot less monsters in battles. You just go ahead and open your AD&D book and check out the exemple of play given at the beginning of the game, clearly, it's written in a no visual representation style and a player points out to another "don't shoot there 'cause my character is there!" (or maybe it was the exemple of play about how initiative worked back then). Are you really going to have me list out all the games that don't imply the need to play with visual support?

Like I said before, it would even be possible to play some of the games you listed without support, like D&D 4e and D20 games, although I don't see why you would do that since it has now really become clearly built for it with the squares, movement points, area effects, and all that having become so prevalent. Many games have changed towards this style. Which is completely fine and I enjoy it. Again, I think the fallacy is in saying that this was always true and games that still don't require them are necessarily inferior.

EDIT: Jesus, why do you think it's called Pen and Paper anyway?

 

[Luckymoose]

You're just implying that any ruleset which lists a radius to a fireball needs to have a visual support. Even though that's the way you and your group has done it, it's just not necessary in most cases especially of older games. In the 90s, all the groups I played with would have sighed at the idea of pulling out rulers or something like that to measure out circles of radius and whatnot. You can play Call of Cthulu, Vampire Masquerade, GURPS, Reve (especially Reve!) or Burning Wheel and many others without visual representation of anything, D&D 1 and 2 weren't necessarily played with minis, especially since there were usually a lot less monsters in battles. You just go ahead and open your AD&D book and check out the exemple of play given at the beginning of the game, clearly, it's written in a no visual representation style and a player points out to another "don't shoot there 'cause my character is there!" (or maybe it was the exemple of play about how initiative worked back then). Are you really going to have me list out all the games that don't imply the need to play with visual support?

Like I said before, it would even be possible to play some of the games you listed without support, like D&D 4e and D20 games, although I don't see why you would do that since it has now really become clearly built for it with the squares, movement points, area effects, and all that having become so prevalent. Many games have changed towards this style. Which is completely fine and I enjoy it. Again, I think the fallacy is in saying that this was always true and games that still don't require them are necessarily inferior.

EDIT: Jesus, why do you think it's called Pen and Paper anyway?

Pen and Paper and grid battle maps are not separate things. Hell DND 1 was based off of miniature war games. It's always considered some form of visualization and grid paper is still paper. People can homebrew the system and not use the correct battle maps, but with grids you don't need to pull out a ruler, just count the squares. It's extremely simple. The only way combat can work without a gird map is if it's based on dice stacks IMO. Rolling against someone else's roll. It makes having all the armor and gear moot since you can't use it in a situation that has absolutely no grounds in where, when or how things take place. Regardless we should cease this discussion in this thread and if required move it to another thread where it would be on topic.

edit: I learned about DND from old school gamers from the 70s and 80s originally, but didn't play a full session until much later. Everyone I've ever seen uses the system I've said.

 

[Rub'Rum]

So you’ve always been playing this way, with visual representation, fine.

I’ve played both types on an equal basis I’d say by now. I’ve played in groups that used both styles (visual support and not) in various games. Never have I seen someone going "what no visual support what?"

I have never ever seen anyone adamantly claiming that the other type of play was "homebrew". That just baffles me.

 

[Dachs]

Noone has mentioned The Witcher?

Games prominently involving Poland are objectively bad.

Also, the engine, especially the combat engine, sucked, from what I understand.

 

[Communisto]

DnD 4th Edition.

GURPS 4th Edition

Also, I know its a bit light but I'm putting in a mention for Ocarina of Time. Unforgettable story telling and presentation.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Noone has mentioned The Witcher?
Also, Drakensang: River of Time was pretty good.

Games prominently involving Poland are objectively bad.

Also, the engine, especially the combat engine, sucked, from what I understand.

This. I liked witcher, but the combat was just so repetitive and boring it made me stop playing it.

As for Drakensang, i thought The Dark Eye was better.

 

[Maniacal]

Games prominently involving Poland are objectively bad.

Also, the engine, especially the combat engine, sucked, from what I understand.

The Witcher was awesome, good story. More of an action-adventure than an RPG of course but still good. The combat wasn't amazing, but its not like its any worse (or as bad) as the combat in most mmorpgs, and canonically the swordplay styles of the Witchers is more complex than stab slash stab. ME2's combat (and especially some of the level design) isn't amazing either.

GURPS 4th Edition

Also, I know its a bit light but I'm putting in a mention for Ocarina of Time. Unforgettable story telling and presentation.

The Legend of Zelda games are not RPGs.

The only way combat can work without a gird map is if it's based on dice stacks IMO. Rolling against someone else's roll. It makes having all the armor and gear moot since you can't use it in a situation that has absolutely no grounds in where, when or how things take place.

I fail to see how using dice rolls and oral descriptions (both of which would still be needed with models and highly detailed grids unless you want to store 100s of models for any situation) renders gear and abilities irrelevant or makes not playing it the way you play it not as good or pure.

 

[TheDanish]

Gonna have to put Morrowind as my #1. Other than WoW I haven't sunk so many hours of my life into a game. Incredible world, full of character, history, and realism.

WoW is a close second for successfully combining casual play with the MMO genre. I blame my lack of high school academic motivation on WoW. Plus, Blizzard is a company that is very good at balancing their visions with what the players want.

I'm surprised the original Deus Ex hasn't been mentioned. It may be an FPS/RPG hybrid but it's an incredible game that I consider a linear version of Morrowind with an excellent storyline.

Torchlight is a great timesink as well. Lots of replayability, a great combination of hack-and-slash and decent complexity.

I have to give Oblivion a mention. The game in and of itself is poorly designed (don't get me started on the fallacies of its leveling system), but the modding opportunities lift it beyond any self-contained mediocrity. Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul in particular gives ESIV everything it needed.

 

[Luckymoose]

I fail to see how using dice rolls and oral descriptions (both of which would still be needed with models and highly detailed grids unless you want to store 100s of models for any situation) renders gear and abilities irrelevant or makes not playing it the way you play it not as good or pure.

Have you actually played a tabletop RPG? If you have played with a system that uses a visual battle map for encounters then you will understand exactly what I mean. Hell tons of feats in the game are specific to these types of combat.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Have you actually played a tabletop RPG? If you have played with a system that uses a visual battle map for encounters then you will understand exactly what I mean. Hell tons of feats in the game are specific to these types of combat.

Yeah, even all the feats of AD&D and D&D first edition! Oh wait there were no feats back then.

 

[Polycrates]

The Witcher was awesome, good story. More of an action-adventure than an RPG of course but still good. The combat wasn't amazing, but its not like its any worse (or as bad) as the combat in most mmorpgs, and canonically the swordplay styles of the Witchers is more complex than stab slash stab.

I only played the extended edition or whatever it was where everything had been polished up considerably and the combat still felt just really clunky. The idea wasn't bad but it seemed very hit-and-miss whether the game actually responded to what you told it to do so it was frustrating as hell. Kind of felt like a (very) poor man's Arkham Asylum combat in a way, and it made me think that something more like that except with swords would be an awesome combat system for an action RPG.
And yeah the story is mostly good but there's an awful lot of pretty rough bits. Also those drowners are up there with cliff racers for most tedious enemy ever.
So yeah a good, enjoyable game but not quite top five material, I reckon.

 

[Luckymoose]

Yeah, even all the feats of AD&D and D&D first edition! Oh wait there were no feats back then.

Yeah and those games are horrible to play.

 

[Maniacal]

I only played the extended edition or whatever it was where everything had been polished up considerably and the combat still felt just really clunky. The idea wasn't bad but it seemed very hit-and-miss whether the game actually responded to what you told it to do so it was frustrating as hell. Kind of felt like a (very) poor man's Arkham Asylum combat in a way, and it made me think that something more like that except with swords would be an awesome combat system for an action RPG.
And yeah the story is mostly good but there's an awful lot of pretty rough bits. Also those drowners are up there with cliff racers for most tedious enemy ever.
So yeah a good, enjoyable game but not quite top five material, I reckon.

Neverh ad a problem with the game not responding to my clicks, you just had to time it right (which also has a visual clue unless you are playing on a hard difficulty). It wasn't the most amazing, polished or innovative RPG ever for sure, but it was a damn fun game and CD Projekt clearly showed they were capable of learning from their mistakes (hence the Enhanced Edition, which a free download of is available for anyone who bought the original release) and many of the changes that seem to be in the Wither 2.

The drowners were indeed plentiful but easily outran so they aren't really a problem.

Have you actually played a tabletop RPG? If you have played with a system that uses a visual battle map for encounters then you will understand exactly what I mean. Hell tons of feats in the game are specific to these types of combat.

I have several hundred dollars of Warhammer Fantasy models and played a few games with a friend and a couple of Mordheim games (that we actually stuck with rules pretty well), so close enough. And that still doesn't show that the feats and other combat stuff are made irrelevant by not using models and lots of physical, visual aids.

 

[Luckymoose]

I have several hundred dollars of Warhammer Fantasy models and played a few games with a friend and a couple of Mordheim games (that we actually stuck with rules pretty well), so close enough. And that still doesn't show that the feats and other combat stuff are made irrelevant by not using models and lots of physical, visual aids.

Never said I use models and tons of visual aid. I said I use a graph paper notebook with risk pieces and if I don't have risk pieces I use color paper cutouts. How is that hard to grasp?

 

[Maniacal]

Never said I use models and tons of visual aid. I said I use a graph paper notebook with risk pieces and if I don't have risk pieces I use color paper cutouts. How is that hard to grasp?

It isn't hard to grasp, and those are models (just really really small). Still doesn't show any true in every case difference between the two.

EDIT: It also seems that the only req is graph paper then, which I didn't use and I don't think my friends whom i played with used it in highschool (I didn't know they even existed back then as we went to different schools and would not have liked each other back then anyway ).

 

[Rub'Rum]

Never said I use models and tons of visual aid. I said I use a graph paper notebook with risk pieces and if I don't have risk pieces I use color paper cutouts. How is that hard to grasp?

It's unrelated to your point that pen and paper apparently must use material to display tactical combat, and how that has been the case forever.

The last pen and paper group I formed consists of 5 other people in their 30s who hadn’t played since their teens. We formed the group off the internet; not a single one of us knew each others from before. So all of their experience playing D&D or other RPGs were from different groups in their respective cities independent from each others 15 years ago. Now they had just recently bought 4e books and wanted to get back into pen and paper. When I told them we’d be using minis and a grid map: all of them, every single individual in that café was surprised (not in a bad way). But none of them used it in their individual groups of AD&D and Vampire and whatnot back then. Also the only other comment we have in this thread on this subject is PrinceScamp saying he also played without visual representation of fights. This guy lives across the country for me, he’s just a random guy (hi PrinceScamp!).

I’m not saying visual representation is wrong, I’m saying you seem to have a skewed perception of how prevalent it is in the grand world of pen and paper games.

Anyway, if you’re so convinced, maybe you should go to the Wikipedia article “Role-playing game (pen and paper)” and edit in the part about them most of the time requiring grids, maps and whatnot, because right now I don’t see it. Also change the picture of the people playing with a picture of your group with the full visual setup, because right now the pic might give the wrong impression since there is none of it.

 

[Yui108]

Honestly Fallout New Vegas, IMO, is incredible. I could not put it down. ME2 is pretty good, not enough choice for me.