Games you won't play

[Invisible Stalker]

2E D&D

I hate horror and "grim & gritty"

Westerns and Post Apocalyptic anything


I pretty much stick to D&D and super heroes

[Khairn]

I'll pretty much play anything if the GM and rest of the players are really interested. Those games that I won't play is broken into 2 groups. Those that are an absolute no, and those that I might play if there was a significant and continuous inducement. The first group includes Wraeththu & FATAL while the second is comprised of Palladium, Synnibar and 4E.

[Aus_Snow]

Any RPG that has inherent the stench of pretentiousness, highly offensive belief systems, or shrieking honking illogic every other page. Also, anything created by people I have taken issue with in a more than trivial way, for whatever reason. Yes, even if I've never met them.

Other than that, I'll try any RPG once. Assuming at least a half decent group, anyway.

[fanboy2000]

I will try any RPG, any group, 3 times.

[Hunter In Darkness]

I dont have alot of games systems under my belt but 4e and GURPS i did not like them at all

[WayneLigon]

Originally Posted by Bullgrit

Is there a game, genre, setting, or character type that you will not play, at all? Is there a deal breaker game element (like the previously mentioned) that will make you consider walking away from the table if the DM was absolutely intent on playing it?

Games and Genre

An over-emphasis on picky detail and memorization would be a system deal killer, but it depends on how prevelant that sub-system is. When I play D&D I simply don't bother keeping track of encumbrance. I refuse to do it. I know around about what is within the realm of 'light' and I keep it there, but there's simply no way I'm constantly going to add and subtract every time I drop my backpack. Same thing with spell componants. I might as well take 'Eschew materials' every time since I'm never going to keep track of anything under about 20 gp value. Shoot, after about fifth or sixth level I stop bothering to keep track of money under about 1000gp.

I can't think of a single game, per se, that I refuse to play under any circumstances because a good GM can make a bad system enjoyable usually long enough to get through a short campaign but there are several that I wouldn't normally go out of my way to play.

Champions is one because, related to the above, I refuse to keep track of END. I used to love Champions, but about the last half of my time with it, I simply played characters that had minimal END requirements or bought it off.

It would take a pretty special GM to get me interested in any genre that didn't involve some kind of 'cool powers', be those actual powers or supernatual abilities, or access to interesting advanced tech, etc. Cold War - era Spy games are a good example. Westerns. I could do it for 1-2 games as a change of pace, but under normal circumstances that would be about it.

I do not like 'grim and gritty' genres, but for the most part I lay that at the feet of bad GMing in the past. I've had enough games like that go horribly awry that I'm gun-shy of it.

On a related note, I probably will not play a system with a critical hits subsystem that allows for permanent injuries. See below.

I have come to really dislike systems that have no way of compensating for terrible dice luck. Action points, hero points, whatever - nowadays I almost always have to have something that can mitigate a bad roll at a critical moment. I had an entire campaign fall through because the main character bricked the roll at the most critical time, and I swore that I'd never see that happen again.

I will not LARP. I've tried it, and with friends and sane, friendly people that recommended that knew what they were doing and otherwise ran an exceptional and interesting game. I'm too out of shape and too used to my own bed and such to enjoy lots of moving around or camping out. Also, my suspension of disbelief cannot extend to myself. If I were a svelte handsome 20-year old IRL, yeah, I probably would like it. Now? Nope.

I don't really consider FATAL a game so much as a fratboy joke, so to me it doesn't count.

I think it would be difficult to play something like TOON or TFOS in an ongoing campaign; I usually have difficulty being funny on demand. I've never tried those, though.

We make a lot of jokes about "D&D: Serious Business", but I really despise playing in a game where all but one guy has put some effort into their PC, but you have this guy who thinks it's just perfectly fine to have a PC named 'Johnny Buttkisser' or who says 'My character dresses in nothing but bright gold plaids' (and said PC is not, say, a gnome bard or something like that) or something like that. That'll make me leave quicker than just about anything else. Humor has it's place but silly joke characters don't unless it's a one-shot and meant to be somewhat silly.

Usually that's not so much a problem but in superhero games I find it's almost par for the course that almost half the people will choose to create something truly stupid. Like Super Pimp, able to shoot adamantium styling combs like shurikens

Setting

Hmm. Right off the top of my head I cannot think of a setting that is an instant turn-off. Usually by the time I think about 'setting', we've gotten past the hard parts of game system and genre.

Character Type

Here, I have a veritable raft of problems.

There's tons of things I dislike or will not play. Sometimes I might be in a mood to break one of these, but it's few and far between. Interestingly, none of these apply when I'm the GM. I'll portray pretty much anything, but I'll admit that my PC is usually a major bit of wish fullfillment for me and so comes with a laundry list of things that I won't accept.

I will not play a character that is ugly, or usually even plain unless being plain is a major facet of that character (mainly, the thief who is so ordinary that he simply blends into the background).

I will not accept a GM telling me I've been permanently deformed, defaced, or missing a limb.

I won't have a character that smokes or has a drug habit.

I don't much like non-human-looking races. It's a huge stretch for me to play a dwarf. Star Wars is usually kinda difficult for me because most of the rest of the players insist on playing aliens. For superhero games, I really, really dislike people playing monsters and freaks, sort of like the current X-men setting is like. If your PC can't take off his costume and go to the grocery store, I don't much care to play in that game.

This is one of the few areas that encompasses the characters other people play. If the majority of the players in a superhero game insist on playing monsters and freaks (or worse, 'heroes' that routinely maim or kill), there's no way for me to have a good time.

The only character trait I've found myself unable to roleplay is the inability to read. I had one guy and I just could not do it. I kept tripping up and forgetting it, and just bought off the disad the next time I got XP.

[Stereofm]

Originally Posted by Bullgrit

Is there a game, genre, setting, or character type that you will not play, at all? Is there a deal breaker game element (like the previously mentioned) that will make you consider walking away from the table if the DM was absolutely intent on playing it? (I am not talking about a DM/personal characteristic.)

Bullgrit

Most of the time it depends on the skill of the DM.

Otherwise, I am very wary when someone gets out a low print experimental indy game from the garage. And no 4e for me.

[TwinBahamut]

Let's see here...

A lot of different rules systems have never really appealed to me. White Wolf's main mechanics and BESM stuff for example. I have not really played enough games of the sort to judge them all.

I probably will never play a game based off of a licensed property, especially Star Wars.

There are many published settings that I just don't like, such as Rokugan.

I am not really a fan of the horror genre, so anything that tries to be genuinely scary wouldn't work for me.

Groups of PCs that run around like amoral killers are terrifying and unsettling for me.

There are all kinds of player personalities that I simply can't stand. For example, I doubt I could ever happily play a game alongside someone who enjoys denouncing editions of D&D to anyone who is within earshot.

[Lanefan]

Never want to say never, but there's some RPG genres and systems you'd have to be mighty persuasive about in order to get me to play:

Anything modern/western/superheroes
Anything that tries to be silly e.g. toon-based but fails to make me laugh
Anything where char-gen is not at least somewhat random
Anything where in-game randomness has been eliminated or overly curtailed
Anything where creative play or ideas are consistently trumped by rules
Anything diceless
Anything clueless (or so badly designed it's not worth the effort)
Anything where trying to remember abilities, numbers and powers gets in the way of trying to remember the ongoing story (3e, I'm looking at you)

That said, there's some things I *would* like to at least try sometime:

LARP in some form or other
D+D 4e
Any number of D+D-like games I've never had the chance or time to get into

And some things that don't bother me:

R-rated or even X-rated content or themes in a game
Evil characters
PC-vs-PC throwdowns, plots, and bloodletting

As for character class or type, in D+D I do my best to avoid playing:

Monster races
Monks
Paladins

All in all, however, as others have said the main determinant of a game's playability (or lack thereof) is usually the other people around the table.

Lanefan

[Truth Seeker]

Well, I will admit, I would play any game, if put forward, and if the mechanics are that simple to understand (after a while, of course).

But I will not touch SuperHeroes games, and being a constant comic book collector, I should not be that way. But I recently made the discovery, as to why that refusal to touch a game dealing with SH.

It feels just alien...that only way to best explain it. DOn't disdain, hate or dislike, just will not entertain the thought, (although I once played a marvel Super hero game years ago...came away, just not feeling it...)

Correction:Any game, that does not include 4E.

[Starglim]

Each time I come up with something, I recall a time that I have, in fact, played such a game. Maybe the only possible answer is something that I've never heard of or considered, or was so awful I've blocked it from memory.

I'll say, provisionally, anything that requires me to stat myself as a PC.

[Darrin Drader]

There's a very short list for me.

Vampire/Werewolf. A decade or so ago a friend of mine talked my ear off trying to get me interested in these games. Despite his efforts, the more he described them, the less interested I became. I've looked at the books and read some campaign writeups and nope! No interest.

Superheroes. I understand that there's at least one very well constructed supers game out there that is one of the flagship products of a publisher I like. I'm glad someone is doing it well and I wish them all the success in the world, but I've always thought the entire superhero concept is lame. I think superheroes is some sort of cultural outgrowth from Greek Mythology. The problem is that it was cool when it was Greek but not so cool once they started wearing tights. In my opinion, the superhero genre strips the accomplishments of these characters because they always had some special power that nobody else has to fall back on.

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

In my opinion, the superhero genre strips the accomplishments of these characters because they always had some special power that nobody else has to fall back on

. . ., like Wizards and Clerics in D&D, Adepts in True20. . .

Or yeah, most PCs in most RPGs. . .

[Darrin Drader]

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

. . ., like Wizards and Clerics in D&D, Adepts in True20. . .

Or yeah, most PCs in most RPGs. . .

Sure, but everyone can become any of those things. How many normal people can be Superman or Wolverine?

Another difference - you don't often see D&D characters throwing each other through concrete walls.

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

Sure, but everyone can become any of those things. How many normal people can be Superman or Wolverine?

To the first: not really, or not any more than normal people becoming supers in a supers game; take your pick. To the second: any number, or however many the GM determines is right or reasonable for the supers setting/campaign; take your pick.

Another difference - you don't often see D&D characters throwing each other through concrete walls.

Maybe not - depends on particular rulesets, levels of play, the planes one visits / lives on, descriptions of actions and consequences, spells, magic items, powers and DM fiat, I suppose. In no particular order. Also: even if not, you sure do see them stopping time, teleporting vast distances in seconds or less, skipping across the very planes of existence, one-shotting demons or maybe even demon lords. . . or even deities(!), granting / using / being granted virtually open slather wishes, killing with a mere word, flying as if it were entirely mundane, blasting each other left and right with vaguely elemental energy from [may as well be] nowhere, summoning otherworldly entities to aid them, casually and reliably bringing the dead back to life, changing their own / others' / objects' forms with a flick of the wrist or purely will. . . and so on.

D&D is very much like superheroes, trappings or no. And that's even without such specatacles as epic spellcasting, etc.

[Treebore]

I know I will never LARP.

I thought I would never play Westerns, but Go fer Yer Gun and Aces and Eights showed me I was wrong about that.

I thought I would never play Supers, but Mutants and Masterminds showed me I was wrong there.

I thought I would never play anything resembling steam punk, but Iron Kingdoms proved there is a version/style I can have fun with.

I like RIFTS and Synnibar, and I don't get why people knock it. Neither are so broken that they can't be fixed, and they are a heck of a lot of fun.

Now I like Rolemaster/MERPS, etc..., but all that table referencing does get tedious after a while.

I do not play anything by White Wolf, unless they do technically own Engel or Word of Warcraft or Ravenloft, but as I understand it WW was pretty much just the publisher. Now I can see me playing their Werewolf and Vampire games, but not with their "world" assumptions. I could play them using Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter as the premise. Without the heavy emphasis on sex.

I don't think I could be convinced to play TOON, unless I was drunk.

I didn't see anything else listed that I wouldn't play. I like a lot of what others said they wouldn't play. I have yet to even read through FATAL, but considering I like Aftermath and Synnibar, maybe I would like it too.

Oh, there is an edition of Traveller I won't play. I think it is considered 4E. Not sure, I really don't worry too much about the editions of Traveller, I hodgepodge it all together anyways, even the edition I don't like gets used by me. I'm certainly not a purist about Traveller, thats for sure. Oh, and I won't do D20 Traveller, class levels in Traveller is just very wrong. Seriously, it bugged me so much it felt like something on a fundamental level.

So thats about all I can think about right now.

[Darrin Drader]

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Also: even if not, you sure do see them stopping time, teleporting vast distances in seconds or less, skipping across the very planes of existence, one-shotting demons or maybe even demon lords. . . or even deities(!), granting / using / being granted virtually open slather wishes, killing with a mere word, flying as if it were entirely mundane, blasting each other left and right with vaguely elemental energy from [may as well be] nowhere, summoning otherworldly entities to aid them, casually and reliably bringing the dead back to life, changing their own / others' / objects' forms with a flick of the wrist or purely will. . . and so on

Yes, but these powers are accessible to everyone, depending on their class and magical gear, so despite the trappings, they're still humans harnessing the natural forces that exist within that world. OK, so you can throw fireballs. It's magic that allows you to do that. It's also magic that can protect you from them. It's also magic that allows you to travel the planes. Sure, you can play a sorcerer, where magic is something you're born with, but that gives you no advantage over the guy who was born a normal human and studied magic until he became good at it.

Superheroes assumes a mundane world that exists alongside the heroic world where the only way to have powers is to be born to them (or get bit by a special radioactive gecko, or get accidentally bombarded by Doofus rays, or what have you). In other words, a normal person generally won't stand a chance of becoming one unless the GM is engaging in some necessary deux ex machina, or stand a chance against them. To me, this demeans the relevancy of ordinary humans. In D&D the assumption might be that PCs are a cut above the average person, but that usually means that they're in the top percentages of strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, etc. but it does not mean that they have something that is clearly far and away superior to any other person.

The one thing that irks me about D&D is that high level PCs can jump off a mountain, not employ any magic whatsoever, dust themselves off, and get back to the fight. Of course that's just an issue of applying hit points in ways that aren't consistent with the notion that they represent the character's ability to take a hit. A hardass DM would say, Hey, you just fell off a mountain. You're dead. No save. Roll up a new character.

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

Yes, but these powers are accessible to everyone, depending on their class and magical gear

'Class' = package of superpowers (i.e., powers that are not accessible to 'normal people' at all); 'magical gear' = devices / gadgets / thingies that grant or enhance mundane abilities and/or superpowers. Many 'supers' happen to have been normal humans anyway, if not for very similar 'boosts', as it so happens. fwiw.

, so despite the trappings, they're still humans harnessing the natural forces that exist within that world. OK, so you can throw fireballs. It's magic that allows you to do that. It's also magic that can protect you from them. It's also magic that allows you to travel the planes. Sure, you can play a sorcerer, where magic is something you're born with, but that gives you no advantage over the guy who was born a normal human and studied magic until he became good at it.

So, in other words, just as is the case with superpowers, those can come from birth onwards, or from another source, with specialised - and very much out of the ordinary - training being just one of these. Replace the word 'magic' with 'superpowers' (in fact, they're exactly the same thing anyway) and it's all clear as can be.

Superheroes assumes a mundane world that exists alongside the heroic world where the only way to have powers is to be born to them (or get bit by a special radioactive gecko, or get accidentally bombarded by Doofus rays, or what have you).

That depends entirely on ruleset, campaign style, comic [or comic-like] influences (if any), setting, characters made, etc.

In other words, a normal person generally won't stand a chance of becoming one unless the GM is engaging in some necessary deux ex machina, or stand a chance against them. To me, this demeans the relevancy of ordinary humans. In D&D the assumption might be that PCs are a cut above the average person, but that usually means that they're in the top percentages of strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, etc. but it does not mean that they have something that is clearly far and away superior to any other person.

Um, except that they do. How many D&D settings are truly chock full of Wizards, Clerics, Druids, etc. - as the norm, I mean. . .? What's up with how that conflicts with nearly every single D&D (or related) setting I've come across, and even rulesets themselves (e.g., minions, Action Points, Conviction, normal humans / normal men, NPC classes or roles, totally unstatted 'normal' NPCs all over the place, descriptions of typical demographics. . .?

For instance, in 3e-based settings, every single NPC with average stats could be a Sorcerer, let's say. And every second one could fling Magic Missiles around (f'rex). How would it be if (for example) every second human in a given setting did just that (i.e., lobbed three Magic Missiles a day around). . .?

D&D characters are, regardless of edition, *extremely* different from normal folk. The books themselves, even without setting material brought in, make this abundantly clear, over and over. Edition after edition.

[Deepfire]

No D&D 4e, no Shadowrun, definitely no Das Schwarze Auge (Dark Eye) for me

[Jürgen Hubert]

Dangerous Journeys. Never again.

It's not that I mind crunchy rules as such, but I abhor pointless crunch. And that game had it in spades.