What type of game do you hate?

[GILGAMESH]

Any railroaded game, where only sorcerers, clerics, and paladins have charisma above 8(No one will ever play a bard) that consists of go into a dungeon, kill all monsters, collect loot, leave, buy new equipment, heal, repeat indefinitely

I'm right with you on this! In a past group I played with, that's all the group wanted to do. There was a couple of us(DM included) that was really very exhausted of this. It broke our group up. In my present group, staying alive is the main concern. It's amazing to play with a group that not bent on pocketing every coin, weapon, and kitchen sink. (The Dm is fantastic!) But back to what you said. I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Wormwood]

DM's who "Wing It". No module, no notes, not even a stinking index card. Just some amateur improv.

I don't care if you're making everything up as you go along, just *don't let me know!* Occasionally look down at a notebook, scribble on a piece of paper, flip through a book---something, anything to at least provide the illusion of preparation.

Yes, I crave structure. Blame my parents.

 

[Melan]

Artsy gaming. You know: "Please wait, I need another ten minutes to get in character!" or "Eeek, a dungeon! Methinks we should hunt bass instead!".

Give me story and hack and slash, give me dungeons and high adventure - give me D&D, in short!

 

[Jaws]

Starting out with nothing

I hate when the DM says just when he is starting a new campaign that we can play any first level character. Which usually means the base ones in the PHB. The players usually get together so we won't have characters that will clash too much.
So we all have our new characters ready to play by game time.
And what happens, we start out as slaves or captured and have none of our gear. Just a loin cloth.
I don't mind if I'm captured or jailed for something stupid I or one of the other PCs did.
One started out as slaves on a ship. We had to escape before the ship burned down and sank.
Another campaign started out great. We role-played well and got into our characters. But our first real combat was just a set-up for us to get captured. So there we are just in our skivvies deep in the dungeons of the baddies.


Peace and smiles

j.

 

[Henry]

I'd have to say I have two pet peeves:

1) Campaigns that have no continuity. Don't give me Star Trek: Voyager, give me Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If I just accidentally pissed off the top merchant prince of Venice, I really should expect to lay low for a while, or get out of town altogether. Actions that have no consequences have no meaning.

2) Total immersion storytelling. Reducing OOG table talk is an admirable goal, but for the life of me, if I tried to actually play a character down to using an eccentric voice the entire time at the table, I'd fall out my chair laughing, or I'd get quickly silly. Give me fun, or give me my car keys!

 

[Xarlen]

Really, some things can be solved with variety. I did an intensive storyline where the PCs saved a city from Talona (Goddes o' pain, poison, disease and suffering) was trying to kill an entire city through phases oriented to their god, and summon her handmaiden to wipe out the rest. Lot of fighting, lot of harsh Stuff.

To clense the pallet, the next thing was a murder mystery. The only Combat was some hired thugs to slow the PCs down.

As to the origional question of the thread...

Games where the DM cators to only one type of player. We were a 'team assembled by the king to help win a war', I was the only spellcaster aside the NPC cleric. The Entire Campaign was a big platter to the fighter-types. I Sucked. The two times my spells worked, the DM reversed the effects because the NPC BBEG did it. The best thing I could do was haste the party, sit back, and get picked on for being a halfling.

I'll toss my hat into Railroading.

 

[ForceUser@Home]

More than anything, I dislike games where I feel railroaded into a single course of action. A close second, however, are games with absolutely no overriding theme. I like action and high adventure, but only when it has meaning within the larger context of the campaign world. Finally, I despise games that provide little room for me to develop my character's roleplaying persona. Action is all fine and dandy, but sometimes I just want to roleplay, darn it! A good campaign mixes action and deep-immersion storytelling in equal parts.

 

[DerianCypher]

Overpowered. I once had a campaign where my level 16 wizard could easily solo the tarrasque, it was sick.

DM confusion. In the above campaign the DM had no IDEA where the campaign was going. He NEVER had anything prepared and most of the campaign was done on the fly.

Worst. Campaign. EVAR.

 

[Corinth]

If I want to spend four or more hours yammering in character and do little or nothing else, then I'll join a Vampire LARP and attend all of the downtime salon sessions.

 

[Creamsteak]

Re: Starting out with nothing

I hate when the DM says just when he is starting a new campaign that we can play any first level character. Which usually means the base ones in the PHB. The players usually get together so we won't have characters that will clash too much.
So we all have our new characters ready to play by game time.
And what happens, we start out as slaves or captured and have none of our gear. Just a loin cloth.
I don't mind if I'm captured or jailed for something stupid I or one of the other PCs did.
One started out as slaves on a ship. We had to escape before the ship burned down and sank.
Another campaign started out great. We role-played well and got into our characters. But our first real combat was just a set-up for us to get captured. So there we are just in our skivvies deep in the dungeons of the baddies.


Peace and smiles

j.

Definitely I agree. I have played with way too many DM's that combine this with, your mages are all amnesiacs, and your cleric doesn't get spontaneious spells, and there are absolutely NO magic items, not even the +1 longsword I need to kill the blasted demon!