What is the most original or weird RPG(pnp) system you have played?

[Serus]

Question, as in the title. It occurred to me after looking at the Vault2.0 (torrent with literally thousands of RPG - for ones who don't know) that there are so many weird, silly, obscure systems. Some with original or rarely touched settings or very unique mechanics. There are some outright crazy as well. And some brilliant ones. I never played anything like that myself. The most original one was a home-made system about being a navy officer in British navy 19th century (something like O'Brien books about captain Aubrey). I see now that there is at least one system doing this but we didn't have it at the time. In short, nothing too special although purely historical pnp RPGs are relatively rare.

So, what's your practical experience with less common and less "mainstream" pnp RPG systems? The experience can, oviously be good or bad. Just share it.

 

[Hag]

I had a one shot play of Flatland RPG on IRC long ago. I played a pentagon or something. We were all wondering what the hell we were playing and was merely ok and mostly confusing. Maybe it's better if you've read the novel.

 

[Bigg Boss]

I had a one shot play of Flatland RPG on IRC long ago. I played a pentagon or something. We were all wondering what the hell we were playing and was merely ok and mostly confusing. Maybe it's better if you've read the novel.

Thank you for introducing me to this.

 

[Norfleet]

Unfortunately, I have had basically no opportunities to actually play anything more recent than 1E, because I have no friends and nobody likes me. However, the crown for weirdest must obviously go to FATAL.

 

[Snorkack]

Ruf Des Warlock ("Call of the Warlock"). It was a weird, german fantasy pnp. The needlessly complex rules made the Dark Eye system look like babby's first rpg and the setting was full with anglicisms and 'funny' contemporary references. For example one spell was called 'Blitz des Oh-Pel' (Could be translated to 'Flash of Vau Xhall').

Still, we enjoyed it and beneath all wackiness there were some genuinely memorable ideas to be found, like that gladiator demon you could only defeat by committing suicide while fighting it.

 

[KateMicucci]

When it came out, Apocalypse World was original and weird, not really for the setting but the rules. A lot of what made it weird was how poorly explained the rules were in the manual. I ran a few games but never understood if we were "doing it right" or not. I don't think that the combat works.


There's also a LOT of tranny stuff which people just ignored back then but not so much now.

 

[NecroLord]

Unhallowed Metropolis.
Heard it is really good and I plan to give it a shot.

 

[hello friend]

SLA Industries had a very unique vibe. Didn't play many sessions, though. I read the metaplot years later and wasn't impressed, the setting is a grim grimy totalitarian dystopia but the metaplot iirc is that it's all being dreamt up by some guy in a hospital bed. Of course you're not supposed to know that as a player.

 

[odrzut]

I played a lot of short gimmicky RPGs on conventions, I don't even know their names, the whole "handbook" was usually like 2 pages and it was more of a novelty for a few quick one-shots. There was one where you play as a mimic hiding in a human city. Mechanics was focused on not starving, every action made you more hungry and you could starve very easily, you had to eat and stay hidden or escape before heroes get you, fighting just made whole city turn against you. Was pretty fun. There were degrees of failure and it escalated very quickly.

Other weird one was "Dwory Końca Świata" (Courts of the End of the World +-) - it's fairly standard renneisance-era cloak&spade RPG, focused on intrigue, but its author is touring most conventions in Poland and DMing sessions in his system for random people. There's a persistent world with characters you can play for years (if you go on these conventions often), and after each year the author adds whatever happened on these sessions (dozens each year) to the source book. He's been doing it since 90s so the world is very detailed. Also the system gives a lot of power to players - you can change the world, introduce plots, npcs and motivations for npcs with "fate points", basically DM gives a simple prompt, players plot against each other and the world for 3 hours and things escalate into 10 different intrigues collapsing at the same time . And then usually half the players die.

 

[Lithium Flower]

When it came out, Apocalypse World was original and weird, not really for the setting but the rules. A lot of what made it weird was how poorly explained the rules were in the manual. I ran a few games but never understood if we were "doing it right" or not. I don't think that the combat works.

Interesting, I for one think that Apocalypse World is one of the few systems I've read that actually teaches you how to run it. In other words, it does not merely teach you the rules but also conveys - in a very easy to read and conversational style - the actual approach to GMing the game, with both practical examples and higher-concept and so on. But you are supposed to read it cover to cover, just like a book - if you were, for instance, trying to selectively reference it as one would a traditional rulebook, I could see how it would get confusing.

It does very much require an attitude shift if you are coming from a D&D background. I started GMing with Apocalypse World, so perhaps that made my induction easier. Watching Vincent Baker's own videos should help, I think he filmed a few sessions that he ran. But overall AW is no longer really all that weird or niche, especially after Dungeon World (clumsily, IMO,) popularized the system.

 

[Silva]

Yeah, Apocalypse World is only weird if you're coming in drowned in traditional preconceptions. Coming with an empty cup It's one of the better explained games I've seen.

And I don't have a vote for most weird game, cause weird games are my favorite stuff. Maid, Dogs in the Vineyard, Planescape, The Spire, Troika, Fiasco, Cartel, Ultraviolet Grasslands, Night Witches, A Red and Pleasant Land, Shinobigami, etc. I love this shit.

 

[Serus]

Some interesting stuff. I think Hag "wins" so far for the weirdest setting and - probably - mechanics.

odrzut​

I don't quite remember "Dwory Końca Świata" despite being on more than a few conventions. I must have missed it. Sounds fun.

Moar!

 

[Tyranicon]

I haven't actually played it, but I read through the rules of Nobilis and it's really, really weird.

I'm honestly not sure if it's meant to be played, or just more of a thought experiment.

 

[FritzedProcess]

Unknown Armies, I suppose, although the game is not for everyone. I like the magic system, because all magic users have to live by a strict code or lose all their accumulated power (e.g.: dypsomancers can never be fully sober, viamancers can't settle down and can never be passengers in a vehicle, etc.), and that power takes commitment, sacrifice, and often illegal and immoral acts to accumulate.

The way of magic is a hard and bitter path in this game, the sort a psychopath who'd sell his mother for the right price would walk. So, like in D&D but without the bullshit.

 

[Serus]

Unknown Armies, I suppose, although the game is not for everyone. I like the magic system, because all magic users have to live by a strict code or lose all their accumulated power (e.g.: dypsomancers can never be fully sober, viamancers can't settle down and can never be passengers in a vehicle, etc.), and that power takes commitment, sacrifice, and often illegal and immoral acts to accumulate.

The way of magic is a hard and bitter path in this game, the sort a psychopath who'd sell his mother for the right price would walk. So, like in D&D but without the bullshit.

The dypsomancers make me think of a relatively new Potato RPG "Zombie Chopper" that has similar mechanic but for everyone. I haven't played it (yet?). It's a postapo where you have to drink because only alcohol stops potential infection. And there are costs of doing that as you may imagine. Interesting mechanic to say the least. I imagine a session where people do it in-game and in reality at the same time could be interesting.

 

[Serus]

I haven't actually played it, but I read through the rules of Nobilis and it's really, really weird.

I'm honestly not sure if it's meant to be played, or just more of a thought experiment.

Yeah, with some RPGs you wonder. Both the ones with eccentric mechanics and settings. Or titles. Stuff like "The Gentlemen's Entomology Club", subtitle: "A roleplaying game of wine-drinking, boasting, beetles and some incidental rationalist philosophy" comes to mind. In this one game mechanics seem to closely match the title and setting.

 

[Larianshill]

Ever sat down with your friends for a nice game of Gangrape?

 

[Stella Brando]

Dungeons & Dragons, 5th Edition

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

There are two types of RPGs: Dungeons & Dragons and games derived from Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Probably too well known, but I'd say Paranoia is up there. Where you play a series of clones in a dystopian hellhole ruled by a tyrannical AI. The mechanics are simple enough, but because of inbreeding and clone degradation, everyone sucks at everything. It's pretty much a given that you're going to die either from sheer ineptitude or backstabbing from your group members since everyone's part of a secret organization of one stripe or another and are likely to either murder you or try to out you for treason against the Computer (hence all the clones, once you die, your new clone is jettisoned onto the scene, until you run out of clones).

It's a lot of fun for one shots. I'm not entirely sure how you could do a campaign without being able to load up on additional clones. I don't think we ever even completed a single adventure.


I also have a great fondness for Over the Edge which is a mechanics light game on an island in more or less the current day with inspirations taken from things like Twin Peaks. You would pick (as I recall, it's been decades) 2 "edges" which were player defined traits that were given a number of dice based on how broad or narrow they were, or if they were paranormal (i.e. impossible for someone to do without the edge). You also picked one flaw that was similarly player defined that you could only roll fewer dice for.

As I recall, you got to roll 2d6 for everything except things governed by your edges and flaw. The flaw rolled 1d6 and the edges rolled either 1d6, 3d6, or 4d6 depending on whether the trait was paranormal, broad, or narrow. I could be wrong about the 3d6 and 4d6... that seems high, but again, it was a very mechanics light game, more about the setting and imagination/weirdness. I think you'd need to have a pretty specific group dynamic to make this one work, but it was a lot of fun being able to make freeform characters and tool around in Al Amarja.

 

[KateMicucci]

When it came out, Apocalypse World was original and weird, not really for the setting but the rules. A lot of what made it weird was how poorly explained the rules were in the manual. I ran a few games but never understood if we were "doing it right" or not. I don't think that the combat works.

Interesting, I for one think that Apocalypse World is one of the few systems I've read that actually teaches you how to run it. In other words, it does not merely teach you the rules but also conveys - in a very easy to read and conversational style - the actual approach to GMing the game, with both practical examples and higher-concept and so on. But you are supposed to read it cover to cover, just like a book - if you were, for instance, trying to selectively reference it as one would a traditional rulebook, I could see how it would get confusing.

It does very much require an attitude shift if you are coming from a D&D background. I started GMing with Apocalypse World, so perhaps that made my induction easier. Watching Vincent Baker's own videos should help, I think he filmed a few sessions that he ran. But overall AW is no longer really all that weird or niche, especially after Dungeon World (clumsily, IMO,) popularized the system.

My frustration was mostly with the combat. I found the book's example on how to run an advanced combat encounter nonsensical. The characters who played gun nut and battle babe did so so that they could fight a lot but could not be sufficiently challenged by combats. I see that a 2nd edition came out which significantly changed how the combat worked so the designer must have agreed that it was lacking. There are apparently also now rules for vehicle combat. Not having those rules is pretty much the reason why my final game died, as players got frustrated with each other during a deathrace they were running. The "operator" character has also been removed, whose moonlight ability was another source of confusion for us, but as nobody ever wanted to play one it didn't matter.

 

[Silva]

My frustration was mostly with the combat. I found the book's example on how to run an advanced combat encounter nonsensical. The characters who played gun nut and battle babe did so so that they could fight a lot but could not be sufficiently challenged by combats.

That's more or less intended. PCs in Apocalypse World are pretty powerful from the start and 2nd edition didn't change that. The Gunlugger and Battlebabe WILL wipe the floor with the opposition, the Skinner and the Brainer WILL sex/mind-control NPCs, the Driver and Angel WILL be invincible behind the wheels/supporting others, etc. PbtA is not D&D or Shadowrun, it's not a game about overcoming physical challenges. It's a story/drama-generating engine where the PCs are the stars of the show. The appeal is seeing them through diring situations and dilemmas (PvP included) and the snowball of unpredictable consequences that ensues. Think about it more as an ensemble cast TV show like Walking Dead or GoT. (Edit: take a look at Narrativism/Story Now! to understand the kind of gaming culture it evolved from)

If you really want combat I suggest the more PbtA-inspired/adjacent games like Blades in the Dark (gothic heists) and Lancer (mecha). Just don't go expecting the degree of detail of 5e, Shadowrun, Runequest, Gurps, etc.

 

[Demo.Graph]

Ever sat down with your friends for a nice game of Gangrape?

it seems nearly impossible to get convicted for rape or gang rape, at least in contemporary Sweden.

So, how do I apply for citizenship? Do I really have to be Muslim?

Back on topic.
For me some of the weirdest PNPs are Demon the Fallen and Ars Magica (and probably Mage the Something line from WW). Not specifically because of the rules and/or setting, but because the books are very demanding of the group in a peculiar way.
They either require to invest a lot of time and knowledge into them (and when you do, you see that writers of the books are retards and their settings don't match the mechanics and it all falls apart).
Or, if you play them lightheartedly and handwave a lot, but then their settings fall apart (again) and their mechanics become too much of a hassle and you're really incentivized to drop them altogether in favor of GURPS or some other simple system.

 

[KateMicucci]

My frustration was mostly with the combat. I found the book's example on how to run an advanced combat encounter nonsensical. The characters who played gun nut and battle babe did so so that they could fight a lot but could not be sufficiently challenged by combats.

That's more or less intended. PCs in Apocalypse World are pretty powerful from the start and 2nd edition didn't change that. The Gunlugger and Battlebabe WILL wipe the floor with the opposition, the Skinner and the Brainer WILL sex/mind-control NPCs, the Driver and Angel WILL be invincible behind the wheels/supporting others, etc. PbtA is not D&D or Shadowrun, it's not a game about overcoming physical challenges. It's a story/drama-generating engine where the PCs are the stars of the show. The appeal is seeing them through diring situations and dilemmas (PvP included) and the snowball of unpredictable consequences that ensues. Think about it more as an ensemble cast TV show like Walking Dead or GoT than a combat-based game. (Edit: take a look at Narrativism/Story Now! to understand the kind of gaming culture it evolved from)

Yeah, I know. This was 11 or 12 years ago when AW had just come out. I am no longer interested in story games. Knowing what I know now, the faggotry that's going to surround a game trying to be an "ensemble cast TV show like Walking Dead or GoT" is obvious. It takes a particular cross-section of players who are both mature enough to handle that type of game, and have so much free time that they can waste playing it.

 

[Silva]

Speaking of drama...

Character classes:

Spoiler

• La Belleza (The Beauty) is the femme fatale, diva, and conniving woman depending on how you play her.
• El Caballero (The Gentleman) is a male counterpoint to the Belleza but is more of the active party in the games of the heart.
• La Doña (The Matriarch) is the protective but harsh parent. She’s designed to control the actions of other (child) playbooks but also the sort of long-running character that stays on a soap opera decade after decade.
• La Empleada (The Employee) is the servant, maid, etc. in the rich people’s big, important house. These characters can be some of the most empathetic but also can have secret motivations and be sneaky enough to ruin things for other playbooks.
• El Gemelo (The Twin) which is probably the playbook I’d pick. You could be an evil twin or a nice twin but if you don’t pretend to be your twin you’re wasting everyone’s time.
• El Jefe (The Boss) is not a nice sort of boss. This playbook is all about being demanding, getting angry at others, and generally being a dick.