New System Deal Breakers

[Pentius]

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...

I don't think those points are necessarily at odds. Having choice doesn't make things the same. In my experience, players almost never bring the same character to the table, even if all the choices are in their hands(there was this one really terrible game back in the day with three Drizzt clones, but the sameness of the characters was only the tip of the iceberg).

RE: Characters not being perfect. I think about this the way you think about coolness. I could have a flaw by having a fighter with low Strength, but that bores me. I'd much rather he be good at mechanics, but have his flaws in personality. Maybe he's super vain about his talents. Maybe he's got a soft spot for gambling, or women. Those are the kind of flaws that really get you into hot water now and again, and that is what I want in a flaw.

 

[Greg K]

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.

As a DM and player, I don't mind players planning for the next level if it takes account to what is, currently, going on in the campaign. However, I don't want them planning builds several levels ahead (when they have no idea where they will be in the setting) or multi-classing to fit some pre-determined build when they had no opportunity to train for the new class. (hence, why I think the 3e DMG training variants should have been default).

 

[Anselyn]

I want to be able to define that character in both fluff and crunch terms. The more control is taken from me, the farther outside my comfort zone I am.

Are your characters always the same?

 

[Smoss]

As I have aged, the only real deal breaker anymore is ease of play. How easy is it to play a character? How easy is it to GM? I don't have the patience for most fiddly bits anymore.

Heck, it is almost to the point where I don't want to play anything but my own RPG system anymore, everything else just disappoints me. I must be getting bitter and cynical in my old age...

Smoss

 

[Ahnehnois]

RE: Characters not being perfect. I think about this the way you think about coolness. I could have a flaw by having a fighter with low Strength, but that bores me. I'd much rather he be good at mechanics, but have his flaws in personality. Maybe he's super vain about his talents. Maybe he's got a soft spot for gambling, or women. Those are the kind of flaws that really get you into hot water now and again, and that is what I want in a flaw.

A good mechanical system covers those kinds of flaws (see most iterations of Cortex), the same way it describes a character's good points.

 

[Gundark]

#1. Unless your savage worlds or a similar crunch game, don't make me go through the hoops of making an NPC that the players have to go through. 3.x/d20/PF I'm looking at you. I like games where NPCs break the rules somewhat IMHO this is one the strengths of D&D 4e.

#2. Long combats

#3. Rules for the sake of rules, I know that this is arbitrary, but some games I think "really? did we really need a rule for that?".

#4. Overly long skills lists. I see some people complain about skill lists that are too short, but when you really could have rolled two or three skills into one now I have to spend points to get the benefit of all three...then yeah I get pissy.

#5. Games that use the d10 as the sole dice rolled. Unisystem and Mekton.

 

[Mournblade94]

I don't think those points are necessarily at odds. Having choice doesn't make things the same. In my experience, players almost never bring the same character to the table, even if all the choices are in their hands(there was this one really terrible game back in the day with three Drizzt clones, but the sameness of the characters was only the tip of the iceberg).

Oh god the Drizzt clones of the 90's. I was in the military in the early 90's and DM'd for lots of different groups. Just about every group I DM'd for had a Drizzt clone.

I was running a 2nd ed oriental campaign and one dude insisted on playing a DROW NINJA that would only use scimitars. He at least wrote a backstory, but it was:

1. Really nice drow hates his society
2. Drow gets a chance to escape
3. Drow makes it to the surface of Kara Tur
4. Pops up near a a frakking NINJA CLAN and the master takes him as apprentice
5. Covers his face through out the clan as they do not know he is a dark elf (SNAKEYES ANYONE?)
6. Gets trained as a ninja.
7. once fully trained reveals his bloodline'
8. ostracized from his clan

Yeah this guy had trouble dating as well.

Oh god, that was one of the worst characters.

 

[Pentius]

A good mechanical system covers those kinds of flaws (see most iterations of Cortex), the same way it describes a character's good points.

I know there are systems that cover these sorts of things mechanically, but I don't find that coverage necessary for my enjoyment. My point really was just a compliment/foil to Lanefan's that the best RP has nothing to do with combat effectiveness and everything to do with style.

 

[Pentius]

Oh god, that was one of the worst characters.

Oh god, yeah. I think we could do a whole thread on "Horrible backstory tropes".

"And then the ninjas found me, and they were like, 'Hey, a total stranger, let's teach him all our coveted secrets.' And so they did."

 

[Dragonblade]

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.

Thanks, Lanefan, you bring up some good points and counterpoints.

You also brought up another deal breaker for me. XP or advancement based on individual "role-play" awards. This also goes to the heart of your point that its better to "role-play" coolness.

My problem is that what construes coolness or good RP can really vary from GM to GM. I may portray my character in a way that I perceive as cool, but have had GMs who went out of their way to have their NPCs mock or ignore it. Likewise, I may turn in what I felt was a Shakespearean performance at the table, but the GM didn't agree or didn't get it.

Having stuff like this be left up to GM fiat just frustrates me no end. If my coolness is based on mechanics then I don't need anyone to buy into my coolness. The numbers objectively back me up. And interestingly enough, when the GM knows my PC is good at doing something, the NPCs act accordingly. I don't have to fake it through RP and put myself at the subjective mercy of a DM who may be incompetent or oblivious.

Its liberating to be free to RP one's character the way they want to. Not the way the GM thinks they should.

Its all well and good for some to say, 'Well, find another GM', but that's the whole point. You shouldn't have to. A well designed ruleset can mitigate the impact of poor DMing by eliminating this sort of subjectivity.

I see and deal with enough social judgement all around me in the real world. I play RPGs to have fun. I don't want to have to prove myself or fret about whether I'm living up to the subjective RP standards of another when I'm at the game table.