Falling out of love with your game

[Umbran]

Except that, when it's still in production, a game can change.

The mass of material published for the game changes. The game played at your table changes only if you (collectively, as a gaming group) agree it should.

Personal tastes and needs do change over time. The things I liked in a game (or a book, or food, or any other hobby) a decade ago may not be what I like right now. What I liked then may no longer be tolerable.

That being said.... I think "hate" should not be applied in this context. If it is not true hate, it is hyperbole. If it is true hate, it shows a lack of sense of proportion. Real hate is an ugly, ugly thing. It is understandable to apply it to some true evils in our world. Hobby entertainment games just don't cut hate. I know that colloquial use calls for it, but this is an instance where I think the colloquial use confuses the issue greatly.

 

[maddman75]

Tastes change over time for multiple reasons. For me, the game and genre its in limit the stories that can be told and the kinds of games one can play.

When 3e first came out, I was a bit of a grognard about it. I had mountains of 2e books and considered myself content with that. After hearing some interesting things about the new version, I bought a PHB just to see if there were things I could steal for my home game. I was blown away. A skill system that made sense! These feats were essentially special abilities for fighter types! The multiclassing rules were brilliant and elegant!

But familiarity breeds contempt. Yes, multiclassing was awesome...if you weren't a caster. The consistant math made the game easy to understand..but it broke down before 3rd and after 10th. The 'system mastery' design ethic meant that rather than embracing all the options, every few levels my players would ask 'dude, what feat should I take so I don't suck?'

But that's not all of it. I grew tired of traditional fantasy. Orcs, elves, and cure light wounds no longer lit my imagination the way it used to. Playing something modern, with monsters hiding in the shadows seemed a lot more interesting to me. So I've gotten into games like Call of Cthulhu, Buffy: the Vampire Slayer, and Hunter: the Vigil.

I like the mechanics of 4e but haven't played much, because no matter how dressed up its still D&D, and I'm bored with it.

 

[jdrakeh]

Maybe this is why I'm not understanding. Because to me, the core rules of any game, is the game.

Well, you asked about why other people fall out of love with a game. You should be prepared for the possibility that they consider a "game" to be more than the text of one rule book or otherwise define it differently than you do. Frex, I consider a "game" to be all of the rules in use + campaign setting + people I play with. To me, a book of rules is just a book without those other things, not a game.

 

[keterys]

One thing of note is that while that original PHB or whatever might not change, the games that people are able and willing to play might. So a player might not be able to get into a campaign that didn't use all the new stuff, or a DM might not be able to secure players who don't want to use Tome of Battle and the Spell Compendium (or at least didn't complain a lot about it), etc. It definitely works for some, but others might do things like play RPGA games and I know that those playing Living Greyhawk (which I actually was not, after the first few levels) saw the game change quite a bit over time. Also, time illuminated a number of unforseen interactions (haste-harm,polymorph,karmabead-holyword, etc).

 

[jdrakeh]

The mass of material published for the game changes. The game played at your table changes only if you (collectively, as a gaming group) agree it should.

Well, I did say that it can change, not that it must or will.

 

[Barastrondo]

I'm not asking why you hate X edition, I'm asking what causes, in general, a love for a game to change to a hate for a game? I mean, it's not like a human relationship -- the game can't do something bad.

Human relationships don't always wither and fade just because someone did something bad. Spending the rest of your life with someone, from sharing a bathroom to figuring out kitchen and cleaning duties, is work. Keeping it fresh and exciting is work. Sometimes relationships end because people change, and they're just not right for each other any more, or for long periods of time.

Even if a game does or doesn't change, the people playing it might. A game that was perfect for you eight years ago might have been good fun for you but not perfect six years ago, and kind of lackluster for the person you wound up being last year. I think "hate" is kind of a hyperbolic term to apply to something as trivial as a roleplaying game in pretty much any case (except probably FATAL), but getting to the stage where you just don't want to go back to a game you enjoyed the hell out of back in the day is a pretty understandable process.

 

[Rykion]

Games can change. Rules bloat has been mentioned, but games tied to established settings also can suffer from fluff bloat. Sometimes an evolving metaplot gets in the way of fun. Some games are fun to play and run early, but get less fun as characters progress.

People change and the gaming industry also changes. New games come out that do things in a way I like better than the game I have been playing. I also don't care for rules heavy games anymore. I used to love reading new game systems, but I don't have the patience to read through 300+ page games anymore.

 

[Gothmog]

From my experience, the only game I've ever gone from liking to strongly disliking has been 3.x.

When it first came out, I hopped on the 3e bandwagon. I had played and DMed a lot of 2e, and still enjoyed it, but all the extra little fiddly bits 3e added looked cool and interesting, plus it streamlined and made many things more intuitive (saves and BAB for example). At first, I really enjoyed 3e, and we played a ton of it. But as we continued to play it over the next year or two, a lot of things began to bug me, especially from a DM point of view. The prep work was monumental compared to earlier editions for no noticable increase in payoff or performance, the system mastery component of the new rules really bugged me and I felt detracted from the immersiveness of the gaming experience of my players, the math and power progression was seriously flawed and wonky as hell, the casters dominated non-casters, magic items were far too important, and the core assumptions of the ruleset didn't match what I wanted from D&D. In short, it didn't feel or play like the D&D I grew up with at all. My players were still mostly enjoying it at that time, so I bit the bullet and continued to play and DM 3.x until about 2005, when my entire gaming group suffered serious burnout on 3.x and were actively disliking it. We never really got on the supplement treadmill, and played with mostly the core books, so the power creep and wonkiness didn't really creep in for us. 3.x was just a woefully inadequate tool for running the kinds of games I wanted to run, and it wasn't worth trying to pound a square peg into a round hole to try and force it to perform up to my expectations.

I've tried playing in 3.x games and Pathfinder since 2005, and I find my distaste for the system continues to grow. There are numerous reasons why (which I stated above)- but the most annoying thing is that the base rules system and assumptions it has takes attention away from actually playing the game and roleplaying, and focuses on optomization, build, and system mastery. This isn't just for my group, but other people I've gamed with as well. I've seen many people who I have gamed with before and know are great roleplayers devolve into munchkin twinkery when 3.x (or its derivatives such as D20 Modern) comes into play. Switch to another system, and the problem goes away. As for why this occurs, I have no idea, but its a strong recurring pattern I've noticed over the years (although obviously not everybody who plays 3.x has this problem).

Its not so much that I hate 3.x, just that I find the system fatally flawed, and it does not fit my playstyle and preferences. It took me a while and some experience with playing the game to really realize this- even though I liked 3.x in the beginning. I have found other RPG systems I really enjoy and which do fit my likes much better (such as BRP CoC, Savage Worlds, WHFRP2 and WHFRP3, Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader, nWoD, and D&D 4e).

 

[Oryan77]

The rules, edition, or whatever don't make the game for me. My characters, my ability to roleplay in character, and the DMs ability to make me believe my character is living in his world is what keeps me interested in the game. It won't matter what rules I use to do it as long as I am able to do it. I don't really ever fall out of love with my game...unless I catch it cheating...then I go all crazy & throw it's supplement books out the window, burn dice, & flirt with other games at the store for payback.

I never feel the need to change editions or games just because I'll get to use new rules or new eye candy. If I have a good understanding of the rules and I am able to use them to roleplay my character, then I have no problems. I think people focus way to much on the rules and way to little on their characters in-game lives. But I understand not everyone approaches the game the way I do, so I am not saying that as a bad thing. But I do wonder if people would stay interested in a game more if they focused more on roleplaying out their characters life (beyond just simply leveling & gaining new powers).

 

[Treebore]

From my experience, the only game I've ever gone from liking to strongly disliking has been 3.x.

When it first came out, I hopped on the 3e bandwagon. I had played and DMed a lot of 2e, and still enjoyed it, but all the extra little fiddly bits 3e added looked cool and interesting, plus it streamlined and made many things more intuitive (saves and BAB for example). At first, I really enjoyed 3e, and we played a ton of it. But as we continued to play it over the next year or two, a lot of things began to bug me, especially from a DM point of view. The prep work was monumental compared to earlier editions for no noticable increase in payoff or performance, the system mastery component of the new rules really bugged me and I felt detracted from the immersiveness of the gaming experience of my players, the math and power progression was seriously flawed and wonky as hell, the casters dominated non-casters, magic items were far too important, and the core assumptions of the ruleset didn't match what I wanted from D&D. In short, it didn't feel or play like the D&D I grew up with at all. My players were still mostly enjoying it at that time, so I bit the bullet and continued to play and DM 3.x until about 2005, when my entire gaming group suffered serious burnout on 3.x and were actively disliking it. We never really got on the supplement treadmill, and played with mostly the core books, so the power creep and wonkiness didn't really creep in for us. 3.x was just a woefully inadequate tool for running the kinds of games I wanted to run, and it wasn't worth trying to pound a square peg into a round hole to try and force it to perform up to my expectations.

I've tried playing in 3.x games and Pathfinder since 2005, and I find my distaste for the system continues to grow. There are numerous reasons why (which I stated above)- but the most annoying thing is that the base rules system and assumptions it has takes attention away from actually playing the game and roleplaying, and focuses on optomization, build, and system mastery. This isn't just for my group, but other people I've gamed with as well. I've seen many people who I have gamed with before and know are great roleplayers devolve into munchkin twinkery when 3.x (or its derivatives such as D20 Modern) comes into play. Switch to another system, and the problem goes away. As for why this occurs, I have no idea, but its a strong recurring pattern I've noticed over the years (although obviously not everybody who plays 3.x has this problem).

Its not so much that I hate 3.x, just that I find the system fatally flawed, and it does not fit my playstyle and preferences. It took me a while and some experience with playing the game to really realize this- even though I liked 3.x in the beginning. I have found other RPG systems I really enjoy and which do fit my likes much better (such as BRP CoC, Savage Worlds, WHFRP2 and WHFRP3, Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader, nWoD, and D&D 4e).

I think I have been getting closer to figuring out what bugs me about 3E/PF/4E.

When I sit down to run or play a game, I want to play, not spend time looking up or verifying rules in the books all the time.

So the less I have to pick up books during "play time" the more I like the game.

So I definitely prefer systems where I am capable of memorizing enough of the rules that I hardly ever have to pick up a book to verify anything. I could do that with 3E with just the core 3, but no one wanted to use just the core 3.

In 4E they simply have too many "core" rule books that I can memorize. So I was looking things up in the books a lot, just like I did in 3E with all the splat books.

So now I go with systems that have a core book of less than 200 pages, and I stick with the core book. So now I hardly ever have to look in the books, and we spend the vast majority of our time engaged in playing the game, rather then rereading the rule books.