New System Deal Breakers

[Retreater]

I spent a lot of time thumbing through new (or new-to-me) game systems at GenCon. Several looked promising until I hit one of my "deal breakers." These are RPG pet-peeves of mine. If I see one of them, I am extremely reluctant to give the system a try.

Here are a couple:
1) Advantages/Disadvantages systems

"My character has excellent marksmanship, and can shoot dead a gnat through the eye of a needle, but he's a violent sociopath who dresses in drag and hops on one leg."

This is my biggest deal breaker - the pinnacle of min/maxism. Create a character who is awesome at one thing, but is so severely handicapped in gameplay that no one wants to roleplay with him (or you as a player). Your character almost always ends up being an insane, deformed jerk. (I'm looking at Hackmaster, GURPS, Savage Worlds, and I'm sure several more.)

2) Hit/Wound/Dodge/Parry/Block/Spend bennies to turn wounds into misses

"Okay you hit the orc. Now roll to see if you wound. Okay, now I'll see if he can dodge. Since he didn't dodge, I will roll with -2 dice to see if he can block it. Since he didn't block it, I'm going to roll on the Fate chart and spend my heroic action points to see if the orc's wounds aren't fatal. [Rolls.] Okay, it looks like you didn't hit the orc after all."

Roll once to hit. Roll once to damage. Why in the name of the Seven Hells should we have to keep rolling to ignore the hits? Why drag on combats? If you want for a monster to be hard to damage, make it harder to hit and not worry about blocks, parries, shields, dodges, or the winds of fate. This slows down combat to an annoying crawl. (I'm looking at you, Shadowrun.)

Are there any deal-breakers for you?

Retreater

 

[Croesus]

Here are a couple:
1) Advantages/Disadvantages systems

"My character has excellent marksmanship, and can shoot dead a gnat through the eye of a needle, but he's a violent sociopath who dresses in drag and hops on one leg."

This is my biggest deal breaker - the pinnacle of min/maxism. Create a character who is awesome at one thing, but is so severely handicapped in gameplay that no one wants to roleplay with him (or you as a player). Your character almost always ends up being an insane, deformed jerk. (I'm looking at Hackmaster, GURPS, Savage Worlds, and I'm sure several more.)

2) Hit/Wound/Dodge/Parry/Block/Spend bennies to turn wounds into misses

Roll once to hit. Roll once to damage. Why in the name of the Seven Hells should we have to keep rolling to ignore the hits? Why drag on combats? If you want for a monster to be hard to damage, make it harder to hit and not worry about blocks, parries, shields, dodges, or the winds of fate. This slows down combat to an annoying crawl. (I'm looking at you, Shadowrun.)

Are there any deal-breakers for you?

re: Advantage/Disadvantage systems. While a badly designed system can lead to what you're referencing, well designed ones minimize those issues significantly, and can even be a plus. 1E Champions had a fairly open-ended disad system and sure enough, some players abused it. Later editions of the Hero rules addressed this, and the latest version (6E) does an excellent job of using disads to add flavor to characters, while avoiding the situation in your post above. There are other ways min/max in Hero, but the Disads system is no longer a problem.

re: Hit/Miss. I agree that rolling to hit, then being told you really missed gets frustrating. It's one reason why I dislike miss chance in 3.x. That said, it's the number of rolls that bother me more, not so much the result, which leads to my first deal breaker:

Overly intricate subsystems with lots of fiddly bits. No, no, no. I want to play an RPG, and every rule that requires my concentration takes away my focus from the roleplaying part of the game. Too many rules that come up rarely, or in very specific situations, or only for specific classes/races/manuevers/spells/etc. are not a good thing. I can think of at least three different RPG's I've read, but never played, specifically for this reason.

Requiring one or more players to play a character they don't enjoy. This is primarily a problem with class based systems, and can be minimized with good design. I've lost track of the number of times I've played some version and D&D and someone has to play the cleric when they don't want to. It's reasonably easy for a GM to avoid requiring a rogue or "face" character, but RAW, it's very difficult to play without a healing character, whether anyone wants to or not. More and more, I prefer classless systems, as they can more easily avoid this issue.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Requiring one or more players to play a character they don't enjoy. This is primarily a problem with class based systems, and can be minimized with good design. I've lost track of the number of times I've played some version and D&D and someone has to play the cleric when they don't want to. It's reasonably easy for a GM to avoid requiring a rogue or "face" character, but RAW, it's very difficult to play without a healing character, whether anyone wants to or not. More and more, I prefer classless systems, as they can more easily avoid this issue.

I don't see classless systems really solving this. Instead a player has to devote resources or build points or whatever to something they really don't want to for the good of the party.

This may not always be true, but a lot of times it is.

On the plus side a lot of systems make healing less of a career and more of a sideshow so it is not so burdensome.


Deal breakers for me:

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.

 

[Umbran]

Requiring one or more players to play a character they don't enjoy. This is primarily a problem with class based systems, and can be minimized with good design.

Maybe not as much as you'd think, at least in a game that expects lots of combat.

You see, the idea of tactical roles is by no means new - RPGs didn't make it up. You can see it in most team superhero comic books (and the Fantastic Four debuted in 1961). You can see it in pretty much every tactical wargame. Why? Because it is sort of how real-life works - some of the same sorts of concepts are used by real-world military forces.

 

[JeffB]

frankly, if all the rules for play (not including things like monsters/magic items) occupy more than 128 pages or so, that's pretty much a deal breaker for me anymore.

e.g. 4E, 3E, PF, Conan RPG, etc. I love things about all those systems, but those kinds of systems are just not for me anymore. I don't enjoy that much work & prep for playing a game nor do I enjoy running 2-4 hour combats. Actually I have never enjoyed that, but I did it in years past just to be gaming. These days I'd rather read a good S&S book or play some Neverwinter Nights.

 

[Greg K]

Are there any deal-breakers for you?
Retreater

I have whole bunch of deal-breakers (and, actually, dislike most rpgs that I have tried)

1. No attributes (i.e., no Strength, Dex (or Agility), Intelligence, etc.) or too few attributes (e.g., lumping everything into Body, Mind, Soul)
2. No Skills or only certain characters can learn specific skills (sleight of hand, tracking, etc.)
3. Overly broad skills
a. Example 1: Cinematic Unisystem, Dr. Who, D&D 4e, and M&M 3e.
b. Example 2: Ninja +4, Detective +6 where these skills include everything that might be associated (e.g, Ninja +x covers throwing shuriken, swinging a ninja-to, stealth, climbing, poison, disguise, etc.)

4. level based skill bonus

5. No advantages/disadvantages (personally, I like them handled similar to M&M complications)

6. D&D style classes outside of D&D/fantasy. This is, especially, true of class/level based supers

7. Non-opposed combat outside of D&D (i.e., defending character's combat skill and reflexes don't matter)

6. D&D style hit points outside of D&D

7. roll under systems

8. Special Dice (e.g., DC Universe, Warhammer 3e)

9. Pre-4e D&D style magic and spells outside of D&D

10. lack of bennies, M&M Hero Points, Cortex Plot points (Pre 4e D&D is an exception and I add those

11. Patchwork systems (looking at 1e and 2e AD&D as examples)

12. Systems that try to get cute with things like fan mail, commercial breaks, etc.

13. Get hit in combat and it is reflected by damage your to your relationship

14. PC versions of a race and NPC versions of a race work differently.

15. Pre 3e monster AC.

16. Basic Roleplay and Warhammer (1e and 2e). I attack and then roll the defender's defense roll
I think that I will stop here

 

[JeffB]

I have whole bunch of deal-breakers (and, actually, dislike most rpgs that I have tried)

1. No attributes (i.e., no Strength, Dex (or Agility), Intelligence, etc.) or too few attributes (e.g., lumping everything into Body, Mind, Soul)
2. No Skills or only certain characters can learn specific skills (sleight of hand, tracking, etc.)
3. Overly broad skills
a. Example 1: Cinematic Unisystem, Dr. Who, D&D 4e, and M&M 3e.
b. Example 2: Ninja +4, Detective +6 where these skills include everything that might be associated (e.g, Ninja +x covers throwing shuriken, swinging a ninja-to, stealth, climbing, poison, disguise, etc.)

4. level based skill bonus

5. skills like Ninja +3 No advantages/disadvantages (personally, I like them handled similar to M&M complications)

6. D&D style classes outside of D&D/fanasy. This is, especially, true of class/level based supers

7. Non-opposed combat outside of D&D (i.e., defending character's weapon skill and reflexes don't matter)

6. D&D style hit points outside of D&D

7. roll under systems

8. Special Dice (e.g., DC Universe, Warhammer 3e)

9. Pre-4e D&D style magic and spells outside of D&D

10. lack of bennies, M&M Hero Points, Cortex Plot points (Pre 4e D&D is an exception and I add those

11. Patchwork systems (looking at 1e and 2e AD&D as examples)

12. Systems that try to get cute with things like fan mail, commercial breaks, etc.

13. Get hit in combat and it is reflected by damage your to your relationship

14. PC versions of a race and NPC versions of a race work differently.

15. Pre 3e monster AC.

16. Basic Roleplay and Warhammer (1e and 2e). I attack and then roll the defender's defense roll
I think that I will stop here

Jeez. Do you actually play any RPGs, then?

 

[Greg K]

This is my biggest deal breaker - the pinnacle of min/maxism. Create a character who is awesome at one thing, but is so severely handicapped in gameplay that no one wants to roleplay with him (or you as a player). Your character almost always ends up being an insane, deformed jerk. (I'm looking at Hackmaster, GURPS, Savage Worlds, and I'm sure several more.)

I say blame the GM.
a. if something is not going to come up enough to be a hindrance or it is going to be disruptive, they should tell the player, "No"
b. If they allow it, the GM should be hitting the character with the disadvantage.

Roll once to hit. Roll once to damage. Why in the name of the Seven Hells should we have to keep rolling to ignore the hits? Why drag on combats? If you want for a monster to be hard to damage, make it harder to hit and not worry about blocks, parries, shields, dodges, or the winds of fate. This slows down combat to an annoying crawl. (I'm looking at you, Shadowrun.)

With regards as to your question why? I agree that I don't want a lot of rolls attack, damage then defender parry, dodge just have the defender choose if they are dodging or parrying and build that into the roll (target number or penalty to hit) (incapacitation in SW, however, does not bother me). However, if I want a monster hard to damage, I don't want it being harder to hit unless it is harder to hit. If it is hard to damage do to armor, tough skin that is hard to pierce or slash, I want some kind of separate thing that reduces damage.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Within the realm of reasonable game design, I don't think there is anything in the design itself that is an absolute deal-breaker. If there are classes, I want the classes to mean something. Contrawise, if the game is skill-based, I want it to embrace that choice. But I'm open to many design elements if they are well-chosen and integrated.

Now, there are some genre things that are deal breakers. Steam locomotives in fantasy games, horror being the main focus, hard sci/fi, etc.--nothing objective, but I simply dislike certain genre elements so much that it doesn't matter how good the system is. Really, it annoys me more when the system is supposedly good. If Burning Empires had a bad rep, it wouldn't bother me that the subject matter was such a turn-off.

About the only other thing that is a deal breaker is if the author(s) insist on a lot of editorial content--especially if it is gratuitious, thinly-disguised commentary on real-world issues, or wastes time being hostile to other systems (aka, telling me why your game doesn't suck like D&D, instead of telling me why it is good on its own merits). I can take a bit of design editorial writing, though. Really, none of that is system element, though, so much as a presentation issue.

 

[Greg K]

Jeez. Do you actually play any RPGs, then?

There is a reason that I stated that cannot stand most rpg systems (and I have tried between 50 and 100 and read many more)

My favorite games: Savage Worlds, Cortex (not Cortex +), Mutants and Masterminds (1e and 2e), Icons, True20 (for a class/level system)

Other games I will run/play and/or admire: Ars Magica, Bond 007, d20 Modern (sans the official fx rules), DC Heroes 2e, D&D 3e (core+ DMG variants+ Unearthed Arcana, + 3rd party), Ghostbusters, Rolemaster, Toon

Games I like for setting, but not mechanics: Basic D&D (Known World), AD&D 1e (Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms), D&D 2e (Al Quadim, Darksun, Ravenloft) Earthdawn, L5R, 7th Sea, Shadowrun, Warhammer, OWoD,