Monday, January 21, 2013

RetroStupidPretentious Analysis

As Jeff once explained any RPG worth playing is Retro, Stupid or Pretentious.

I took ten minutes out after breakfast this morning to look at the games I've played lately and subject them to rigorous RSP critique...
click to make bigger
If you don't recognize the name of a game, google it.

EDIT:

Seems I forgot Night's Black Agents...
Setting scores a P for both high concept and extensive research, Mechanics are a solid Pretentious being based on GUMSHOE (maybe RetroPretentious when I ran it) and the structure was StupidPretentious or maybe just Stupid with Ken running the first half and me running the second.

13 comments:

  1. What's Stupid about Dungeon World's setting? I got the impression that it at least tried to hew closely to classic DnD, but I haven't actually played it.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dungeon World's default setting (which we didn't use) is explicitly based on "pop fantasy" (maybe stupid but not Stupid)

      However, as Ian ran it, it had Space Draculas: so the S is capitalize.

      Delete
  2. God I miss playing TMNT. Best thing Palladium ever made.

    Forgive my ignorance, by 'Type IV' D&D do you mean 4e or something else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4e

      "Type" makes people less fighty. People hate revisions but love options.

      Delete
    2. I've been desperately trying to get the TMNT game rolling. But how do you run this fucker?

      I'm cool with all the setting and most of the rules, but setting up actual adventures, and baddies runs me into a wall every time...

      Delete
    3. http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/search/label/TMNT%2FMutant%20Future

      those are all my posts so far on the subject

      Delete
    4. Ah. Clears that up. Thanks.

      As far as running TMNT. I used a pretty simple formula.
      1. Your players are 'good' mutant ninjas.
      2. There are 'bad' mutants, ninjas, and mutant ninjas.
      3. They fight.
      4. Sometimes there are robotech/macross mecha too.

      Delete
  3. Always thought this was hilarious and never understood it beyond Jeff's explanation of the various definitions.

    That is to say, it is impossible for me to think of a game I like in the form of Retro, Stupid or Pretentious, even if they would qualify as such.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Currently writing a game. Working title = The Flesh Engine. Maybe spending too much time readings Zak's blog posts. I am sweating blood trying to make it Retro, Pretentious and Stupid. Its difficult.....oh for the elusive triple!

    ReplyDelete
  5. What do you mean by structure? I thought it was about book organization but Call of Cthulhu gets Stupid so I'm not sure. Do you need separate player/GM/Monster Manual books to truly be Retro?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Structure of the individual campaign/sessions like: sandbox, wake-up-in-aa-dungeon, Player v Player, railroad etc

      Delete
    2. Ah, that explains it. Yeah, I can see where the Stupid comes in in that case.

      Delete