Why Do You Hate An RPG System?

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Likewise. I think playing RIFTS for so many years is what gave me my compulsion to "fix" game systems.

For me, that experience was AD&D 2e. Trying to balance and rationalize EVERYTHING in the Complete Books AND Player's Option... was the sort of quixotic undertaking that 16 year old me reveled in.

(And as soon as 3e came out, I promptly and happily tossed it all!)

 

[prabe]

In my opinion, a game should take one of two paths when it comes to this sort of thing. The first path is to incentivize playing the character you come up with. This enables the player to come up with any personality type with quirks and such, inform the DM about it, and then use the system to reward the player for playing in character. The second path is not to have incentives at all, and let the players come up with and play their characters' personalities themselves.

I'm inclined to agree with this, and my own approach is much closer to the second path you mention here. Heck, in the 5E campaigns I'm running I don't use Inspiration at all, and I've told the players in just about this many words: All that personality stuff, the Bonds and Traits and Flaws and whatnot, that's for you, not for me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm coming a little late to this thread, so I apologize if this has already been said.

I think what is being argued by @Saelorn is not that the freedom to do whatever makes whatever choices "in character," but rather that the freedom to do whatever allows me the freedom to come up with whatever personality(character) I want for my PCs.

If the game incentivizes only 3 of the 2 billion(arbitrarily large number to show that the number is large) ways to play a character, then the player has essentially 3 choices. 1) pick one of the few character personalities that the game rewards so as to be able to get the incentives and stay in character. 2) pick whatever personality I like and miss out on the incentives, gimping myself in the process. 3) pick whatever personality I like and play out of character in order to get the incentives. None of those are attractive options.

In my opinion, a game should take one of two paths when it comes to this sort of thing. The first path is to incentivize playing the character you come up with. This enables the player to come up with any personality type with quirks and such, inform the DM about it, and then use the system to reward the player for playing in character. The second path is not to have incentives at all, and let the players come up with and play their characters' personalities themselves.

This is off base, in that none of 1, 2, or 3 are present. Instead, it's 4 -- invent a character trait you like, write that down on your sheet, and be rewarded when your invented trait causes problems or helps with the situation at hand. There's no list of traits you pick from; when asked to pick a trait, that means you come up with it yourself. The GM's job, then, is to pick up on your trait and make it relevant to the play by framing situations where it can come into play -- both positive and negative. The DM has the option to offer you a opportunity to make your trait cause a problem, and incentivize you if you do so, but it's still the trait you invented to describe what you wanted your character to be, so it's hard to see how that's forcing you to play out of character or make you play a character trait you didn't want. And, you can opt to do it yourself. Not every invocation of your Trouble, or Flaw, or whatever the specific flavor of FATE calls it, will do so -- you can still play your character however you want to -- but, if it does make a big difference, there's a reward for that. You're literally rewarded for playing the character you choose in ways that impact the game. That's the play FATE actually is trying to encourage. If you're not going to engage that -- and, again, it's absolutely fine if that's not your bag -- then there's a mismatch of expectation to mechanics, and that almost never results in fun (hilarity excepted).

 

[Maxperson]

I'm inclined to agree with this, and my own approach is much closer to the second path you mention here. Heck, in the 5E campaigns I'm running I don't use Inspiration at all, and I've told the players in just about this many words: All that personality stuff, the Bonds and Traits and Flaws and whatnot, that's for you, not for me.

On the other hand, for those groups that do use it, Inspiration is an example of a mechanic that rewards players for playing whatever type of personality they choose.

 

[Reynard]

In my opinion, a game should take one of two paths when it comes to this sort of thing. The first path is to incentivize playing the character you come up with. This enables the player to come up with any personality type with quirks and such, inform the DM about it, and then use the system to reward the player for playing in character.

This is literally exactly how FATE works.

 

[Maxperson]

This is off base, in that none of 1, 2, or 3 are present. Instead, it's 4 -- invent a character trait you like, write that down on your sheet, and be rewarded when your invented trait causes problems or helps with the situation at hand. There's no list of traits you pick from; when asked to pick a trait, that means you come up with it yourself. The GM's job, then, is to pick up on your trait and make it relevant to the play by framing situations where it can come into play -- both positive and negative. The DM has the option to offer you a opportunity to make your trait cause a problem, and incentivize you if you do so, but it's still the trait you invented to describe what you wanted your character to be, so it's hard to see how that's forcing you to play out of character or make you play a character trait you didn't want. And, you can opt to do it yourself. Not every invocation of your Trouble, or Flaw, or whatever the specific flavor of FATE calls it, will do so -- you can still play your character however you want to -- but, if it does make a big difference, there's a reward for that. You're literally rewarded for playing the character you choose in ways that impact the game. That's the play FATE actually is trying to encourage. If you're not going to engage that -- and, again, it's absolutely fine if that's not your bag -- then there's a mismatch of expectation to mechanics, and that almost never results in fun (hilarity excepted).

Like I said, I came in late so I think you may be confused about I was responding about. This was from very early in the thread,

"There are equivalent examples in other media. For example, while I consider the original Mass Effect one of the greatest cRPGs in history (possibly even the greatest), one valid complaint you can make against it is the Alignment system only rewards always taking either the Noble choice or the Rebel choice, and tells you ahead of time how your choice is characterized. If you want to get the best result, you have to strictly adhere to making 95% of your choices one way or the other, or else you can't maximize your social skills. This creates disincentive to play your character in the way you would like or according to how you think your character would behave in this situation and instead rewards you for playing an simplistic character whose every impulse in every situation is predictable."

I probably should have included @Celebrim in my post as well to make it clearer.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Like I said, I came in late so I think you may be confused about I was responding about. This was from very early in the thread,

"There are equivalent examples in other media. For example, while I consider the original Mass Effect one of the greatest cRPGs in history (possibly even the greatest), one valid complaint you can make against it is the Alignment system only rewards always taking either the Noble choice or the Rebel choice, and tells you ahead of time how your choice is characterized. If you want to get the best result, you have to strictly adhere to making 95% of your choices one way or the other, or else you can't maximize your social skills. This creates disincentive to play your character in the way you would like or according to how you think your character would behave in this situation and instead rewards you for playing an simplistic character whose every impulse in every situation is predictable."

I probably should have included @Celebrim in my post as well to make it clearer.

Probably. That context from the @Raynard quote certainly wasn't clear.

 

[Maxperson]

Probably. That context from the @Raynard quote certainly wasn't clear.

LOL Yeah. I blame it on early morning tired.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Like I said, I came in late so I think you may be confused about I was responding about. This was from very early in the thread,

"There are equivalent examples in other media. For example, while I consider the original Mass Effect one of the greatest cRPGs in history (possibly even the greatest), one valid complaint you can make against it is the Alignment system only rewards always taking either the Noble choice or the Rebel choice, and tells you ahead of time how your choice is characterized. If you want to get the best result, you have to strictly adhere to making 95% of your choices one way or the other, or else you can't maximize your social skills. This creates disincentive to play your character in the way you would like or according to how you think your character would behave in this situation and instead rewards you for playing an simplistic character whose every impulse in every situation is predictable."

I probably should have included @Celebrim in my post as well to make it clearer.

I find this kind of play can be very prevalent in D&D. At least just as much as in more narrative based games, if not more so. I mean, that's the whole murderhobo phenomenon in a nutshell, right?

"I have no ties to the world so that the DM cannot influence me with fictional elements, and I have no moral qualms about killing things and taking their stuff." Very predictable. And the purpose of the game....to overcome obstacles in order to win loot and XP....promotes optimal choices in play. That combo can really lead to predictable play.

Sure, players are free to create a more fully realized character. But there's nothing that makes them do it, and nothing that incentivizes those choices or enforces them in any way. Which may or may not be an issue.....some players will happily make a flawed character, and then play up those flaws. How often those flaws will have meaningful impact on the game is another question.

5E Made a pretty good move in putting the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws onto the character sheet. But they tied it to a pretty weak mechanic in Inspiration. Without tweaking, the Inspiration mechanic is pretty bland. From what people say on these boards, many groups don't even use it, or forget to use it.

I wish they had gone a little further with it and made these things more meaningful mechanically.

 

[Maxperson]

I find this kind of play can be very prevalent in D&D. At least just as much as in more narrative based games, if not more so. I mean, that's the whole murderhobo phenomenon in a nutshell, right?

"I have no ties to the world so that the DM cannot influence me with fictional elements, and I have no moral qualms about killing things and taking their stuff." Very predictable. And the purpose of the game....to overcome obstacles in order to win loot and XP....promotes optimal choices in play. That combo can really lead to predictable play.

Sure, players are free to create a more fully realized character. But there's nothing that makes them do it, and nothing that incentivizes those choices or enforces them in any way. Which may or may not be an issue.....some players will happily make a flawed character, and then play up those flaws. How often those flaws will have meaningful impact on the game is another question.

No, there isn't. That's why I pick people who like to enjoy the same kind of game that I like. None of my players would fail to pick a personality and roleplay it. That's just the kind of players that they are. They don't all achieve it to the same degree, but as long as a player is trying, that's all I ask.

5E Made a pretty good move in putting the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws onto the character sheet. But they tied it to a pretty weak mechanic in Inspiration. Without tweaking, the Inspiration mechanic is pretty bland. From what people say on these boards, many groups don't even use it, or forget to use it.

I wish they had gone a little further with it and made these things more meaningful mechanically.

I agree. It is pretty weak and we forget about it most of the time. I was actually shocked last week when a player used his Inspiration for something. It was the first time in about 10 sessions that it came up.