Why Do You Hate An RPG System?

[Ratskinner]

I don't think Saelorn is. I think she is only making the narrow claim that a system should not give a an incentive for making a particular choice if it wants to promote role-playing, since having a mechanical incentive to make a particular choice tends to discourage playing a character.

I hear this complaint a lot, and I don't quite get it. Its not like in old-school DnD, where you can get stuck with requirements by class with little or no input on how those will be adjudicated (and indeed, I've seen many vastly different interpretations of what counts as "lawful good" over the ....god help me...decades). In Fate, you get to pick/declare up front what your recurrent challenges and defining characteristics will be. So, if you don't want to face compels for stealing things...don't take an aspect that would be compelled that way. Essentially, Fate is asking you to tell me about your character upfront, and then reward you for playing that way...its got Role-playing rewards baked right into the system! You can even "self-compel" by offering one up to the DM, if they overlook the opportunity.

Now...the other part of the complaint which is..."I don't want to think about non-sim mechanics" (Fate points are no more "meta" than HP or XP). That, I get. That person likes what some would call "Actor" stance, and they don't like being drawn out of it...fine. No problem. But the idea that a mechanic that directly incentivizes you to play the character which you said you wanted to play somehow discouraging roleplaying....? Wut?

 

[pickin_grinnin]

There are some systems that I dislike and don't want to play or GM, but I don't have an all-abiding hate for them. They just aren't ones I enjoy. Those include anything PbtA, FATE, 2d20, GMless systems in general, and most games that fall under the general "storygames" category.

 

[macd21]

I hear this complaint a lot, and I don't quite get it. Its not like in old-school DnD, where you can get stuck with requirements by class with little or no input on how those will be adjudicated (and indeed, I've seen many vastly different interpretations of what counts as "lawful good" over the ....god help me...decades). In Fate, you get to pick/declare up front what your recurrent challenges and defining characteristics will be. So, if you don't want to face compels for stealing things...don't take an aspect that would be compelled that way. Essentially, Fate is asking you to tell me about your character upfront, and then reward you for playing that way...its got Role-playing rewards baked right into the system! You can even "self-compel" by offering one up to the DM, if they overlook the opportunity.

Now...the other part of the complaint which is..."I don't want to think about non-sim mechanics" (Fate points are no more "meta" than HP or XP). That, I get. That person likes what some would call "Actor" stance, and they don't like being drawn out of it...fine. No problem. But the idea that a mechanic that directly incentivizes you to play the character which you said you wanted to play somehow discouraging roleplaying....? Wut?

I think the problem some people have is that they don’t like being ‘told’ how to role play their character. That the system is, essentially, too crude to reflect how they see their character. They don’t like it when the system tells them ‘you should steal that thing’ when in fact they believe their character would never steal that particular thing.

 

[pemerton]

I can't think of a system that I hate. I'm not a big fan of Tunnels & Trolls - too silly, too mechanically bland and too deadly all at the same time. (Admittedly my experience is limited.)

I love Runequest in principle, but in practice find that it is too brutal when used in the sort of way that it implies it should be used (ie to run heroic bronze-age or S&S-type fantasy). Rolemaster is superficially similar in ethos but has a lot of differences of mechanical minutiae that significantly reduce the brutality, especially once the PCs reach mid-levels.

Probably my most-disliked RPG is AD&D 2nd ed, because mechanically it is just AD&D reheated and lacks the capacity to actually deliver the play experience - heroic fantasy - that is promised on the tin. This is an instance of the point about system honesty that other posters have mentioned.

 

[Morrus]

"Hate" is a strong word. I can't hate a game. There are some I prefer to others.

 

[Ulfgeir]

Well, the ones that comes to mind:

* Old World of Darkness - Especially vampire (Claimed to be about personal horror, but the rules made into superbeings with claws and teeth). And the claim that the separate games were not in the same world, even though it was obvious they were. And then of coure the incompatible rules between the different games.

* Exalted 2e: A system that is broken by even White Wolfs standards.. You have a gazillion separate rules for how things for every bloody charm. And if you didn't have perfect defences, then you were screwed. And again rules that were different depending on what type of exalted you played.

* Shadowrun. Cumbersome systems with multiple separate subsystems.

* Eclipe Phase 1e. You needed custom-made spreadsheets to make a character to take into effect all the varying costs and limits based upon what you were and what kind of sleeve you had. You were supposed to switch often, and then had had to redo everything...

Edit: I love the setting of Shadowrun, but I hate the system. I thought FASA was bad at making rules-systems, the current makers are worse.

 

[JeffB]

Everyone is so different- some games mentioned here I really like, and some I agree with. HATE is a strong word, but..

Dislikes

1) D20 Star Wars (1st and revised) 3.x in space and doesn't deliver the fast(er) cinematic action of the previous SW game system (D6).

2) Roll under systems that are not percentile based- IDK why. They just bug me. Black Hack for example. GURPS. I loved Champions (1/2E), Espionage and Justice as a young man AD&D 2E and it's standardization of roll under for ability and NWP checks.

3) Modiphius 2D20. They went to Jay Little and said "make us your FFG SW dice system using normal dice" Doesn't work nearly as well/elegantly as having the special dice-is way more fiddly than learning FFG SW dice, and it's a roll under. Blech.

4) Savage Worlds- I love dice step systems (Earthdawn!). I just cannot gel with this game-Superficially the "gambling" terminology/stupid slang like "bennies" and Aces and Wild Cards. Using a deck of cards for initiative. (which is awesomely appropriate for Deadlands, but seems out of place for everything else). Game assumes you'll be using minis and grids. I didn't find it very Fast Furious or Fun.

 

[ART!]

Hate is maybe too strong a word, but here's some big turn-offs:

Confusing terminology for the chunks of stuff that define your character. "Skills" is clear. "Distinctions" is not. I will make some allowances for setting/theme-appropriate terminology.

Dice juggling, especially when combined with multiple kinds of dice, especially involving proprietary dice with symbols instead of numbers. You're just asking too much of me there, sorry.

Poorly laid-out or otherwise confusing or cluttered character sheets. It's often the first thing I look at in a new rpg.

 

[Delazar]

I wouldn't say "hate", but there are some RPGs I dislike.

I usually dislike RPGs when:

1) they use dice pools -> even worse when they use dice pools and you have to SUM the results up!
2) they're not supported by a copious amount of pre-written scenarios

 

[Guest 6801328]

I hate any game that claims to be an RPG, while simultaneously operating by rules that are inherently antithetical to role-playing.

FATE is the classic example. In order to play FATE, you need to engage with the meta-currency of fate points, or else you won't be able to sway the narrative when you need to. The rules encourage you to get in trouble early on; not because it's the smart thing to do, or even necessarily because it's what your character would realistically do, but because you want the fate points. You're supposed to make decisions on behalf of your character, by taking into consideration that this is a game which operates on principles that are unknown to the character. It's pure meta-gaming.

From what I recall, based on an earlier thread about Conan, the 2d20 system works on similar principles. The GM is supposed to actively antagonize you, and you're supposed to make decisions by accounting for a meta-currency which enables them to do so. You aren't allowed to actually think like your character at any point, or else DOOM will bury you.

I'm not even saying that I hate those games as games (although I still wouldn't play them under any circumstances). I just hate that they pretend to be about role-playing, while simultaneously undermining any sort of in-character decision making. It's highly disingenuous of them.

lol.