Games I'll Probably Never Run
Jul. 5th, 2009 04:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theronThere are games I own (sometimes multiple editions of) that I admire, enjoy reading, but realize I will very probably never GM or play. Generally, this is either due to the game having a rather limited appeal to my potential pool of players, or the realization that I wouldn't be able to sustain the game over the time I feel it deserves. Sometimes, it's just a situation where I have no idea how to do it justice.
In the first category is Columbia Games' HârnMaster. It's a spiffy low-magic/high-grit system intended for one of the most beautifully detailed settings ever created. The problem with it is largely two-fold: first, a hardcore medieval setting is a tough sell to either of my groups of players, who seem more oriented towards big loud heroics, which is pretty much the anti-Hârn. Also, the setting requires a fairly high level of player buy-in and knowledge, being the sort of place where the more you as a player know, the more you'll enjoy the game. While I may find a group to play a quiet, immersive, long term game set in Hârn, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Other games in this category: Ars Magica, A Song of Ice and Fire RPG, The Riddle of Steel, and Witchcraft.
Tending more toward the second category would be a game like Pendragon, which depends on long-term play and campaign development. To me, one of the great attractions of Pendragon is the notion of generational play, beginning with a savage Briton warrior and ending up the campaign with his chivalrous and cultured grandson. While Pendragon still suffers from some of the buy-in issues confronting the games mentioned previously, the King Arthur story is known well-enough to appeal to fans of larger-than-life games. But getting a buy-in with a commitment to play regularly for many, many sessions is a major commitment, one I don't think I could get from my current pools of players. More's the pity.
In the final category are games like Unknown Armies, which is wonderfully esoteric and crazy and I just don't think I'm either esoteric or crazy enough to do it justice. Also, it's a hard one to gauge player interest in. Another one in this category is Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play, which makes me giggle madly, but being only vaguely familiar with the minis game, I feel like I'd bog down trying to get too many things right instead of focusing on adventures. Also, given that the career system is the core joy of the game, it requires long-term play to get the maximum value.
While I certainly get enjoyment from the reading and musing on these games, I do feel rather guilty, as they ultimately are meant to be played, and I know that's bloody unlikely.
In the first category is Columbia Games' HârnMaster. It's a spiffy low-magic/high-grit system intended for one of the most beautifully detailed settings ever created. The problem with it is largely two-fold: first, a hardcore medieval setting is a tough sell to either of my groups of players, who seem more oriented towards big loud heroics, which is pretty much the anti-Hârn. Also, the setting requires a fairly high level of player buy-in and knowledge, being the sort of place where the more you as a player know, the more you'll enjoy the game. While I may find a group to play a quiet, immersive, long term game set in Hârn, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Other games in this category: Ars Magica, A Song of Ice and Fire RPG, The Riddle of Steel, and Witchcraft.
Tending more toward the second category would be a game like Pendragon, which depends on long-term play and campaign development. To me, one of the great attractions of Pendragon is the notion of generational play, beginning with a savage Briton warrior and ending up the campaign with his chivalrous and cultured grandson. While Pendragon still suffers from some of the buy-in issues confronting the games mentioned previously, the King Arthur story is known well-enough to appeal to fans of larger-than-life games. But getting a buy-in with a commitment to play regularly for many, many sessions is a major commitment, one I don't think I could get from my current pools of players. More's the pity.
In the final category are games like Unknown Armies, which is wonderfully esoteric and crazy and I just don't think I'm either esoteric or crazy enough to do it justice. Also, it's a hard one to gauge player interest in. Another one in this category is Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play, which makes me giggle madly, but being only vaguely familiar with the minis game, I feel like I'd bog down trying to get too many things right instead of focusing on adventures. Also, given that the career system is the core joy of the game, it requires long-term play to get the maximum value.
While I certainly get enjoyment from the reading and musing on these games, I do feel rather guilty, as they ultimately are meant to be played, and I know that's bloody unlikely.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-06 01:03 pm (UTC)What is it about WitchCraft that makes you feel it falls in the first category? It's always struck me as a game that requires low player knowledge in the beginning.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-06 03:28 pm (UTC)The problem with Witchcraft may be as much about my own biases as anything else. Due to games past, I'm very cautious about touching on real-world religious themes in my gaming. Given that Witchcraft touches fairly heavily on such matters, particularly with religious beliefs that are out on the fringes of the mainstream, I'm even more cautious. And, oddly enough, it's a game I'd be more worried about offending my pagan gamer friends with than the Judeo-Christian. I could very well be reading more into these sensitivities than there is, but I know instinctively it would be a hard sell for a number of the gamers in my life.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-06 04:30 pm (UTC)