What are bad ideas in RPGs?

[Andor]

Inspired by the 'Ideal RPG' thread, what are systems or ideas that screw up a game?

I'll post my list of bad ideas to spark things:

1) Subsystems that mandate 'splitting the party.' The classic example of this is the decker/hacker in Cyberpunk and Shadowrun. Interestingly both games came up with the same solution and tried to integrate the cyber-world with the larger reality.

-It's possible to do this by accident. Frex in 3e if only one character has 'face' skills then social encounters become the GM interacting with the pretty char while the rest of the party stands in the background picking their noses. But since this is an artifact of charater choices and is not integrated into the game set-up it's best handled at the table.

2: Hopelessness. Some people seem to dig games like Midnight and tribe 7 where you are so totally outclassed by the bad guys you might as well charge a machinegun bunker with nerf weapons. Personally I don't mind being the underdog, but you have to show me a glimmer of hope or my charater isn't a hero, he's a madman.

3: Silly wish fulfillment. I forget the name of the game but there was one where you were playing a god who had forgotten his own powers to keep from being bored to death. So XP was just you remembering powers you always had but had forgotten. Strange and pointless.

What do you tink is bad design?

 

[ExploderWizard]

#1 on the bad design list is any RPG that puts the GM in an adversarial role against the players. GM wins. Game over. Boring.

 

[Snoweel]

2: Hopelessness. Some people seem to dig games like Midnight and tribe 7 where you are so totally outclassed by the bad guys you might as well charge a machinegun bunker with nerf weapons. Personally I don't mind being the underdog, but you have to show me a glimmer of hope or my charater isn't a hero, he's a madman.

Agreed.

What made me love Dark Sun was that adventure (one of the ones with the two ring-binders) that introduced the Avangion (a kind of preserver-dragon) - finally there was some hope.

3: Silly wish fulfillment. I forget the name of the game but there was one where you were playing a god who had forgotten his own powers to keep from being bored to death. So XP was just you remembering powers you always had but had forgotten. Strange and pointless.

I think this is a cool idea.

I once toyed with the idea of an old retired adventurer - an extremely high level character 30 years ago - who was starting out back at low level because he'd forgotten (muscle memory, etc) his old abilities.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Bad design is when you propose lots of optional systems in splats, until the core system creaks under the baroque weight of the created "Meta-System". My pet peeve in 2e, i admit it. It´s okay to add on loads of cool stuff, but the core system has to be built to expect that.

 

[Rechan]

I'll definitely agree with the OP's first two.

1. System Reference Syndrome. In order to play the game, you have to continually refer back to tables, charts, rules, etc to get anything accomplished.

The prime example here is Rolemaster. In order to resolve an action, you have to consult six different charts. No matter how amusing those charts may be, it turns a game into going to law school.

2. Character Creation Engineering School. The character creation process requires more work than an engineering degree. Taking two to three hours, heavy math, and more options than one can shake a die at. I'm looking at you, HERO and Rolemaster. I've also heard that 3e turned off many newbies by the amount of number crunching and system mastery necessary for character creation.

If the creation process alienates new players, or at least is bewildering, that's a definite flaw.

3. Combat Timesink. Where combat is both complex, a game of attrition, and (often) has system reference syndrome, resulting in 2 hours or more, or at least a long, grueling process.

Battletech is an example of this. A friend played in a game where in the first round, he had his legs blown off, and the next two hours consisted of finishing him off. 7th Sea is another; I've had it relayed to me that players would try their damndest to avoid combat simply due to how long a fight took.

 

[Storminator]

Fiddly subsystems that confuse and distract without adding much value.

If the subsystem is annoying and breaks the flow of the game, I'm against it.

PS

 

[Hussar]

Any concept that does not take into consideration how it plays at the table. It could be the most interesting idea in the world, but, if it doesn't work at the table, it's no good.

 

[Wombat]

#1 on the bad design list is any RPG that puts the GM in an adversarial role against the players. GM wins. Game over. Boring.

Except with Paranoia...

 

[Dragonbait]

1) Subsystems that mandate 'splitting the party.' The classic example of this is the decker/hacker in Cyberpunk and Shadowrun. Interestingly both games came up with the same solution and tried to integrate the cyber-world with the larger reality.

-It's possible to do this by accident. Frex in 3e if only one character has 'face' skills then social encounters become the GM interacting with the pretty char while the rest of the party stands in the background picking their noses. But since this is an artifact of charater choices and is not integrated into the game set-up it's best handled at the table.

Oh lawdy, I'm dealing with that in the current campaign I'm playing in (Shadowrun). The game flows like this: 6 PCs. Hour 1 - the face deals with his contacts, Hour 2 - the hacker moves in, Hour 3 - the group goes in the building, the hacker waits outside (this is the only time when all players are involved, even though its just stealth rolls), Hour 4-6 - combat, combat characters take over, each round lasts 30 minutes, non-cyborgs make 1 to 2 rolls every 30 minutes then have to wait for the cyborgs to complete all their passes.

I've never played a game that isolates an individual PC so much for so long as Shadowrun and leaves the rest of the group sitting on their thumbs.

 

[frankthedm]

Instant Death All or Nothing Poison: Fast acting poisons should be rare. Even most combat poisons should take rounds to start working on their victims. Death, if it does occur, should come after hours of Pain and Agony.

That said, poison should also not be "save negates". If the poison gets in to where one's toughness matters, it should have a notable effect.