Why Do You Hate An RPG System?

[Celebrim]

The systems I detest are:

1) Mechwarrior - Doesn't handle scale well, and really needs to. Too lethal to really serve to support the fiction it wants to support.
2) RIFTS - So, so, so many reasons, including the worst handling of scale of any system.
3) Storyteller - Wants to be a rules light Nar game based on character introspection. Hasn't a clue how to do that and actively thwarts its own ambitions. In practice, it's a system best enjoyed by ruthless power gamers.
4) FATE - Wants to be rules light Nar game based on character growth and development. Hasn't a clue how to support that and actively thwarts its own ambitions. In practice, it's a system best enjoyed by ruthless power gamers.
5) Mouseguard - Wants to be a rules light game. Is in practice more fiddly than D&D.

I really don't want to put Mouseguard on that list as there are elements of the design that I really like and I really want to run Mousegaurd but oh wow are there so many things about it that are terrible, and after some playing around with it's just so much work to save the system that I can't see me ever investing in it.

I've heard bad things about a ton of systems that sound like really reasonable criticism but without first hand knowledge I don't want to dis anything.

As for category #2, I'm not going to invite more discord than I have already to list the systems I'd put in category #2 alongside the usual suspects that deservedly come up.

 

[Reynard]

4) FATE - Wants to be rules light Nar game based on character growth and development. Hasn't a clue how to support that and actively thwarts its own ambitions. In practice, it's a system best enjoyed by ruthless power gamers.

I'm not sure you have the right game there...

 

[Reynard]

I'm not familiar with how Champions does its Disadvantages, but in GURPS, it's covered by a random roll to see whether you succumb (with the value of the Disadvantage scaling with the difficulty of the roll). So if you're playing a typical fantasy thief, you might have a compulsion to steal valuable objects, and overcoming that compulsion requires rolling 6 or under on 3d6. Both the player and the character are entirely in the same headspace, that stealing this valuable object right now would be a bad thing, because of the inevitable trouble which it will bring. But they may not be able to help themself, which is what the roll represents.

FATE literally says that you should steal that thing, and invite the accompanying trouble, because you want the fate point. That means either 1) You're making an in-character decision based on out-of-character knowledge, which is the definition of meta-gaming as it is commonly used; or 2) Your game world actually does work on narrative causality, and everyone knows this. Neither option great for role-playing, unless you're in Discworld.

I'm only saying this because you asked why I hate these systems. I don't know if you were unaware of how many people hate the concept of meta-currency, or why, but I hope I've explained the position sufficiently. In any case, I will now disengage with this thread, for my own safety.

You are demanding complete immersion as a prerequisite for "role playing" and, well, it isn't.

 

[Celebrim]

You are demanding complete immersion as a prerequisite for "role playing" and, well, it isn't.

I don't think Saelorn is. I think she is only making the narrow claim that a system should not give a an incentive for making a particular choice if it wants to promote role-playing, since having a mechanical incentive to make a particular choice tends to discourage playing a character.

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.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not sure you have the right game there...

You asked what the board hated. Is it going to bother you if we explain why?

 

[Tonguez]

I'm not familiar with how Champions does its Disadvantages, but in GURPS, it's covered by a random roll to see whether you succumb (with the value of the Disadvantage scaling with the difficulty of the roll). So if you're playing a typical fantasy thief, you might have a compulsion to steal valuable objects, and overcoming that compulsion requires rolling 6 or under on 3d6. Both the player and the character are entirely in the same headspace, that stealing this valuable object right now would be a bad thing, because of the inevitable trouble which it will bring. But they may not be able to help themself, which is what the roll represents.

FATE literally says that you should steal that thing, and invite the accompanying trouble, because you want the fate point. That means either 1) You're making an in-character decision based on out-of-character knowledge, which is the definition of meta-gaming as it is commonly used; or 2) Your game world actually does work on narrative causality, and everyone knows this. Neither option great for role-playing, unless you're in Discworld.

But the RPG world does work on narrative causality whether its GURPS or FATE or DnD the decisions made by the Players get a reaction from the GM - who narrates the consequences.

Fate incentivises players to Roleplay their characters and not just leave the decision to rolling a dice

 

[Tonguez]

Palladium and RIFTS - OMG
Rolemaster had too many tables
4e DnD - eek
ADnD - classes are too restrictive

 

[Reynard]

You asked what the board hated. Is it going to bother you if we explain why?

It doesn't bother me at all, but that doesn't mean I have to quietly agree with it.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think Saelorn is. I think she is only making the narrow claim that a system should not give a an incentive for making a particular choice if it wants to promote role-playing, since having a mechanical incentive to make a particular choice tends to discourage playing a character.

There are equivalent examples in other media. For example, while I consider the original Mass Effect one of the greatest cPGs 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 am not sure a CRPG with inherently limited choices has much bearing on the situation.

Be that as it may,games that mechanically incentivise maintaining a consistent role actually improve role-playing IMO. Role playing doesn't mean "do whatever you would do." it means "do what the character would do." In a game like FATE (and there are lots of other examples) you are supposed to decide what role you want to play, build that character and then play that role. If you were on stage in an improv show, you would be expected to maintain your role even if you wouldn't do what your role would do. Same thing here. Since most gamers are not actors, having mechanical incentives just keeps that behavior at the forefront.

I can't count the number of times some player has made a decision based on their gut morality or preferences that was completely at odds with the game, the genre or their previously established character. Just because you have the freedom to do whatever doesn't mean that whatever choices you make are "in character."

Now, all that said, in practice I don't worry so much. I don't mind if people role-play in third person. I don't mind if they basically play themselves. I don't mind if they play a 2 dimensional character. If they are having fun and not ruining the fun for everyone else at the table, all is good. But I totally disagree with the notion that games with mechanical narrative elements somehow inhibit role-playing.

 

[Ratskinner]

So if you HATE a system, why? Explain it to me.

I'm not sure I hate any particular system (exception granted for silly things like FATAL). However, there are few things that irk me no end, and yet seem horribly common.

1) Advertising your system as some kind of "story" engine....when its really just another bog-standard combat/skirmish system with some RP wrapping (i.e. a standard rpg). Or really, just missing the mark entirely on your genre or promises. Which, sadly, is just about so common that its painful anymore. And its not that I even hate that kind of thing. Heck, I'm happy to play a wargame or skirmish game....just tell me that's what it is upfront.

2) lists...lists....lists.... weapons, spells, 50+skills/feats/tweaks. I'm old enough to be pretty done with it. In the end, the differences between most of the items on these lists are minor, and maybe matter within the combat (and usually nothing else) statistics/math of the system. Yet, players are always looking for those tiny bonuses, etc. I mean, really, if there's a narrative difference, either make it matter or shut up.

3) Going along with #1. Mechanics that don't deliver what they're supposed to, especially if they create incoherent narrative. Things like Fate points and aspects don't bother me at all, because they at least do what they say they will.* But rules that create nonsense or incoherent narrative just curdle my blood. The generics of the traditional HP/damage are the worst offender for me (although some games and editions have taken steps to ameliorate it). I'm really done with "combats" that are glorified accounting exercises with die randomizers.

Just to throw out an example. We are currently playing a Boot Hill 3e game. And I'm no expert on the system, so I don't even know if we are playing it correctly (I'm not the GM), but.... The damage/wounding mechanics are a vast improvement over just a pile of HP. However, the movement/initiative rules seem almost designed to ensure that perfectly sensible combat actions and positions are just about impossible to achieve.

*Which, I think, is just another way of saying "stance" (Actor vs Author vs Pawn) is not so important to me as the nature of the story/narrative that gets created. Board game, war/skirmish, rpg...its all the same to me.