New System Deal Breakers

[Agamon]

1. Long, drawn-out combat. If it takes longer than a half hour for an average fight, I start getting bored.

2. Too many options. Not usually a problem with a core ruleset, but accessory bloat can be problematic, so I try not to let it, no matter how cool a player of mine thinks a new option from a new book is.

3. Inferred play style. I like systems that are open in the type of way to play an RPG.

4. Tied-in setting. I prefer to come up with something on my own, or possibly use another published setting.

5. Alignment as a core mechanic. Drives me bonkers, this one.

 

[rkwoodard]

the other side

When the new version of a system I have played before changes nearly everything about the game, and most of the changes don't appear to have added anything beneficial. New World of Darkness, I'm looking at you. Changing the name of one aspect of a character to a different name is alright if you must, but don't then use that old term to describe something DIFFERENT!

Given Greg K's laundry list, I'm curious on his thoughts on Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.

I on the other hand, use the new WOD as the measuring stick. If the game claims to be fast, it had better be as slick as nWOD (core). I don't much play the big (literally) monster template books. Mostly because between the core book, Mirrors, and a couple of splats, I have my universal system exactly as I need it.

If a game has too many rolls for a single combat action (2 for the agressor and 1 for the defendent...that is at least 1 to many). Action points/benes/willpower/fatepoint have got to be very seemless.

The biggest deal breaker...If the core book is over 300 pages, I will not even pick it up. If it is over 250, I approach with low expectations.

My favorite systems right now nWOD (As I mentioned) and C&C.

Regards,

 

[Greg K]

Given Greg K's laundry list, I'm curious on his thoughts on Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.

I never looked at either Arcana Unearthed or Arcana Evolved that closely. I followed the design journals, but the races and classes did not interest me.
From what I recall, there were a few ideas that interested (e.g., simple, complex and exotic spells), but nothing that made me want to buy it.

 

[blargney the second]

Death spirals.

 

[Pentius]

I on the other hand, use the new WOD as the measuring stick. If the game claims to be fast, it had better be as slick as nWOD (core). I don't much play the big (literally) monster template books. Mostly because between the core book, Mirrors, and a couple of splats, I have my universal system exactly as I need it.

If a game has too many rolls for a single combat action (2 for the agressor and 1 for the defendent...that is at least 1 to many). Action points/benes/willpower/fatepoint have got to be very seemless.

The biggest deal breaker...If the core book is over 300 pages, I will not even pick it up. If it is over 250, I approach with low expectations.

My favorite systems right now nWOD (As I mentioned) and C&C.

Regards,

Ha, I actually like big books. Pull out, hold it in two hands. Put it on the table, the book makes this huge "Thwap!" like a boss. Maybe with a leather binding and some intricate design on the cover. Anyone sees me with that, they know I don't fool around when it comes time to pretend I'm a magical elf.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm not sure if these are deal-breakers, but they're certainly "deal-reconsider-ers."

Overly generic systems. I have no interest in a one-system-fits-all game like HERO. If I'm playing a fantasy campaign, I want a game purpose-built for fantasy. Ditto horror, supers, etc.

Overly mechanical rules text. Reading an RPG book should be inspiring to the imagination. I shouldn't just come away with an idea of how the powers work, I should come away brimming with character and story concepts. And yes, that means I want some flavor attached to all the mechanics, in terms of setting, description, etc. It can certainly be ignored or changed, but it should be there. I'm one of those who believes that bad flavor text is still better than no flavor text.

Systems that try too hard to restrict DM fiat. Yes, this applies even when I'm playing, not just running. I don't want the DM just dismissing rules willy-nilly, but I also don't want the DM being largely superfluous.

 

[Votan]

I think that complexity has to be my number one issue. I definitely do not have the time and attention to really pull the mechanics apart like in my youth.

Grind and/or boring combats aren't fun either. If too many battles spend a long period looking inevitable (in terms of outcome) then they lose player attention. This can be true of a system with otherwise great mechanics and may be fixable in some cases.

 

[Mournblade94]

Everything for anyone I really do not want this in a game. I wast it to do one genre or style of play very well. I do not want to mix lasers, psionics, magic and bronze daggers in my games, so I don't want a system that can do so. Most of them are horribly complex.

Subscription Not so much of a deal now, but will be in the future. I wanna buy my books, and use them as long as I want to, buying only what I want to. I do not wast to suddenly lose everything when I stop ponying up every month.

One of my pet peeves is trying to include everything. I want D&D to do fantasy well (this is no criticism on any edition), I don't want all the sci fi options. I ahve traveller for that. I never have played in HE MAN's world of Eternia.

 

[Dragonblade]

Systems that try too hard to restrict DM fiat. Yes, this applies even when I'm playing, not just running. I don't want the DM just dismissing rules willy-nilly, but I also don't want the DM being largely superfluous.

I'm going to disagree with an element of this.

Essentially, while the DM is the final arbiter of their game, I believe that at least PC power progression should be largely independent of DM fiat.

For example, in 3e whether or not your PC has all the magical gear and hence bonuses and such necessary to take on certain challenges is entirely dependent on the DM awarding the appropriate amount of treasure. Likewise, classes like the wizard have an entire element of their class (acquiring new spells) left mostly up to the whim of the DM.

I dislike being at the mercy of the DM for these sorts of things. Thus I tend to gravitate towards rules like inherent bonuses. That way you can be confident your PC has the right bonuses for the challenges appropriate to your level.

If you have a good DM, its not a problem, but with a bad DM its a nightmare. It also makes character planning difficult when you never know what the DM is going to give you. I have had the unfortunate experience of playing with a lot of bad DMs over the years and thus prefer systems that provide PC abilities/powers/etc. on a predetermined and set progression that doesn't involve the DM.

Likewise, I dislike mechanical bonuses and awards that are left entirely to DM discretion. While their certainly should be some DM discretion in the awarding of things like action points, fate points and the like, there should also be discrete rules governing their acquisition or renewal that are DM fiat independent. Especially if they are literally used to power core abilities of the PC.

 

[Lanefan]

I haven't tried many different RPGs but I can think of a few things that would break the deal right away:

1. Over-design and over-build of characters. If I can't roll up a playable character in half an hour with little-to-no previous system knowledge: see ya.

1a. If I have to choose between flavour and mechanics - e.g. if I read the book and immediately see that if I want to play a character with personality or abilities x I'm going to get screwed by mechanics y, z and a: see ya. (3e multiclass spellcasters are a good example though it took me a while to learn this one the hard way)

2. Over-reliance on a single core mechanic. Core mechanics are fine provided some attention is paid to when they work and when something else would do better.

My core deal breakers:

1) Randomness in character generation - No element of my PC should ever be random. EVER. No random stats, no random HP, no random lifepath table, etc. I want complete control over every aspect of my PC.

It's a good thing we're not on the same design team as this argument would rage through the nights...

I want some random. Not everybody is the same in real life, nor is anyone perfect, and I want both the system and the game world to reflect that. And I can play whatever the dice give me...

4) Anything that prides itself on being "gritty". I want to play a big damn hero! I want to be capable and badass at level 1.

Where I don't at all mind working my way up; but this one is easily solved at the design level by having a series of possible start points - your level 1 might be my level 5, for example; and you just change the level numbers to suit. The game system just has to tell us what numbers to use for how badass we want to start out as.

... especially if they are your PC's main source of power/coolness.

This brings up another deal-break for me: power and coolness coming from mechanics rather than personality. Sure it's fun to bust out some neat combat trick once in a while, but the real joy is being the coolest guy in town by roleplaying that you're the coolest guy in town, and doing it well enough that people buy into it.

The most mechanically bland character in existence can still be the coolest guy in town, if he's played that way.

Lan-"not the coolest guy in town but possibly the loudest, and certainly the coarsest"-efan