Campaigns you *don't* want to play in

[Roman]

I do not enjoy playing 'silly' campaigns or any 'punk' campaigns. The rest is fair game.

Somebody above mentioned that they like silly campaigns, because they play D&D for fun. I just want to comment that we all play D&D for fun - it is just that we find different things fun in the game, some like 'silliness' and some 'seriousness', etc. There is nothing wrong with any of those.

 

[Olive]

I do not enjoy playing 'silly' campaigns or any 'punk' campaigns. The rest is fair game.

what on earth are punk campaigns?

 

[Darrin Drader]

Silly has its place, IMHO. I've had a Hanz and Franz moment in one of my games, and it was hillarious (IMHO). All the players were almost in tears they were laughing so hard. Of course that was back when the younger generation still knew who Hanz and Franz were.

The only setting I dislike is Ravenloft, which is weird since I found the original module to be brilliant. I think a lot of the names in Greyhawk are just plain silly (Nulb, Homlet, Nyr Dyv, etc.) but otherwise I think its a perfectly good, classic setting. 5th Age Dragonlance (What were they thinking????).

 

[rpace]

what on earth are punk campaigns?

The kind you play in, punk!
.
.
.
.
.



Sorry, sorry -- I couldn't resist -- I'm sooooo weak!

I think Roman means any punk games in genre: Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Vampire -- that sort of thing.

~Richard Pace
Art-Golem

I did say I'm sorry.

 

[DDK]

It's the players, not the game...

Umm... my gripes tend not to come with system but more with the players. For instance, I dislike rolemaster pretty intensely, but I'm in a group currently (the smoker group I mentioned a while back... yes, I went back after being a whinging beatch ) where I only have a problem with one of the players and the rest are cool enough that I'm considering asking to be a part of the upcoming RM game.

Then there's another group I was awhile ago where the game was fine, ran to the rules, etc. but the people were just... boring.

About the only system I won't give a fair shake is 2nd ed. I won't touch it with an infinitely long pole.

Otherwise, my beefs are with people, not the games themselves, hence:

Used to have a DM... great friend of mine, had been for years, still is even, but I won't game under him anymore. Because that is all he seems to do is break out his pet characters.

Heh, as a DM I've learned one vitally important lesson... NEVER use pet characters as it ALWAYS causes problems.

It's also better if you end up tailoring NPC's to the game. I have no problems with coming up with an NPC personality in 0.0001324 seconds and running with it so that's not a problem.

I also have a friend a bit like the one you mentioned. He ALWAYS DM's a situation to a point where it ends up in single-combat... it's like he has this fetish for kicking PC butt with a singly powerful, fighter-type figure. It's weird. That and he always puts you in a situation that is utterly impossible to win in... umm... can you say, "Boring!"?.

And I couldn't LARP with a straight face without feeling like a complete looser for the life of me, I think.

Lol, yeah, I gave this a go once... even had some judges robes (you know, the big black ones) that we stole for the event. I was a magic-user, obviously. After the first couple of minutes I couldn't help but feel utterly ridiculous and laughed my way through the first combat. I decided to leave after that so as to not spoil it for all the purists who were glaring at me

The robes were cool though...

I'd also like to play a proactive character -- as long as the GM/DM would allow it -- to show the others that it can be done. I'm often frustrated by the degree of "So what do we do now?" syndrome in some players. Even if there's a lack of information, there are always ways of getting that information, and barring that, there's always something you can do to move the game along...

Oh man, this is a total pet peeve of mine. Players who think I should throw things their way just because their characters exist. Ugh.

I don't mind railroading players at the very beginning of a game, but as the game progresses, I slowly take my hand off the accellerator and try and encourage everyone to make up their own minds.

The opposite of this, though, is the player who dictates to you, the DM, how it's gonna be... those players I tend to get rid of pretty quickly.

Oh, and then there are players who seem to think it's their job to be as frustratingly annoying as possible and to cause problems and be a general PITA at EVERY step of the way... I just got rid of a player like that...

 

[ThoughtBubble]

not so much settings

More than settings, it's tones and flavors I'm sick of. Mostly the campaigns I'm in. We're just woefully ineffective at everything, including finding jobs.

Edit: Though I'm getting sick of my made up on the fly homebrew as well. It's getting too restraining for my players, there's no room for indapendent souls. I think I'd like to see a world where an individual can make a difference.

 

[The Allamistako]

Forgotten Realms.

I HATE FR. If Ed Greenwood ever gets near me, I'll have at him with my Sock +5 of Munichkin Slaying!

Apart from that? Never again Shadowrun (Until they FORCE me to GM it again... *Sigh*), also a no-no towards White Wolf (Until I'm no longer sick of it, at least...), and there is no way I'm gonna go near Dragon Ball Z - ever.

Oh, and germany's most popular RPG ever, Das Schwarze Auge, is a thing that lurks in my nightmares...

Even Rolemaster was kinder to my mind...

-Alla

 

[Fenes 2]

I'll have to echo the sentiment on silly games; though a fried I know would immediately question the definition of "silly."

At this point, I'm not too interested in games where what I do is more important than why I do it. (Though it's quite all right if they're equally important; a subjective quality I know, but one I'm rather attached to...) I'm not in it to win it, so to speak. I think it has something to do with my being the primary GM/DM in our group.

I'd also like to play a proactive character -- as long as the GM/DM would allow it -- to show the others that it can be done. I'm often frustrated by the degree of "So what do we do now?" syndrome in some players. Even if there's a lack of information, there are always ways of getting that information, and barring that, there's always something you can do to move the game along...

I'd also like to play in a game where consciously making mistakes in game aren't somehow outlawed by the players at large. To me, some of the most interesting characters are the flawed ones. It seems to me that players are often forced to make the "optimal" decisions out of peer pressure, or even pressure from the DM, and that's just not right in my opinion. Of course, I suppose it depends upon the style of campaign one's playing, but it's my belief that a character should survive as long as s/he is interesting and a positive force in the overall entertainment of the group.

We can all wish, can't we?

- Rep.

Echoes most of my sentiments. I often like to play a reactive PC though, since DMing most of the time forces me to be proactive already.

 

[Larry Fitz]

I believe that with a good genre and a good conflict resolution system, just about anything can be a fun game. That being said, a lousy genre can make a lousy game and a lousy conflict resolution system can make you want to claw your own eyes out with your lucky rabbit's foot. I do not mean to demean any writer or publisher's efforts, but I really loathe Amber, the diceless Roleplaying game. Really. Sincerely. I hate the conflict resolution system, and said system is so integral to the game I don't know if it's possible or even desirable to come up with a way to rescue the game from it. Loathe. Hey. maybe it's just me.

 

[Ramien Meltides]

I don't want to play in campaigns where the NPC's are always more important than the PC's. Let me explain... it's my misfortune to be involved in a game run by a good friend of mine. He's an awesome GM, makes almost anything fun. So I'm playing in his game.

The problem? My friend picked up the reins from a previous GM (who now plays as the team leader) and the previous GM's campaign setting is, well, the problem.

We're all playing superheroes, part of the main super-hero team of the world. It really begins to suck when you realize that the PC's are in fact playing second-stringers, sidekicks if you will, to the main superhero NPC's of this team. Add into that a superfriends-like-base where just about everything can be found, an uber-powerful artificial intelligence that can do just about anything it wants, and... a slew of NPC experts in just about every single field.

Got a legal problem? The lawyer PC isn't even consulted... the issue is shuffled off to the superteam's "legal department". Need a body checked over for clues? The medical-skilled PC cools his heels while the specially trained NPC's handle it. Whenever a PC speaks up about wanting to participate, the ex-GM always assures us that the NPC's are "specially trained... and they have more experience with this than you".

In the long run it boils down to some vague attempts at detective work to unravel the bad guy's plans... normally the super-nifty artificial intelligence can figure out all the clues... and then combat, which is a whole other kettle of fish. A new player recently joined our group and has been rather uncomfortable with things, thinking there's really no way his character can contribute. I certainly sympathize... and I wish this game would either end, or improve. I can't quit... my friend, the new GM, is running and I wouldn't want to let him down. But all the same, this type of campaign is among my least favorite to encounter, and among my favorite to avoid in the future