Why Do You Hate An RPG System?

[Reynard]

I don't want to gum up the Dishonored thread with this tangent, but the fact that so many people expressed a revulsion for the 2d20 system got me thinking how I don't hate any system I can think of off the top of my head. There are some i prefer not to play, but no game makes me feel like the developers shot my dog (or favorite sci-fi franchise, as the case may be).

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

 

[Nagol]

There are two reason I have for hating systems:

1) The system doesn't do what it says on the tin. In other words, the mechanics and the game description do not correlate. Old World of Darkness products had this problem, for example. To run an adventure the way it was "supposed" to go required the GM to ignore the provided mechanics and apply enough force to push the square block through the round hole.

2) The system is built around terrible and insupportable premises. The classic in this camp is of course, F.A.T.A.L.

 

[Nagol]

I don't hate 2d20. I gave the rules a thorough going-over during the Star Trek beta and was seriously underwhelmed. From memory, the advancement system mostly sucked, Threat/momentum was an interesting, but mechanically flawed design. And like almost every RPG, it fails to handle hierarchy and organisational values/rules at all -- which I think are pretty integral to the whole military organization / ship assignment part of Trek.

 

[Arilyn]

I've never hated a system either. There's so many good games out there right now that if I don't like something I move on.

It could stem from disappointment, especially if a certain system is grabbing up a lot of licences you like..
Sometimes hatred seems to be directed at systems that go against a person's gaming philosophy. So games like Fate can be subjected to this, as well as D&D.

In the old days, you could buy a shiny new game that looks cool and then discover it is broken and practically unplayable. This problem doesn't seem to exist anymore. I can't think of any recently published games that were objectively broken.

 

[Reynard]

There are two reason I have for hating systems:

1) The system doesn't do what it says on the tin. In other words, the mechanics and the game description do not correlate. Old World of Darkness products had this problem, for example. To run an adventure the way it was "supposed" to go required the GM to ignore the provided mechanics and apply enough force to push the square block through the round hole.

2) The system is built around terrible and insupportable premises. The classic in this camp is of course, F.A.T.A.L.

1) I totally understand this, and even agree with the system you presented by way of example. Although I think Vampire is the only real offender in that regard. And I can see why people might have that reaction to 5E if they were looking for, say, the 1E playstyle or something like tabletop Game of Thrones.

2) Yeah. Thanks for dredging up those memories. Ugh.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I hate any game that claims to be an RPG, while simultaneously operating by rules that are inherently antithetical to role-playing.

FATE is the classic example. In order to play FATE, you need to engage with the meta-currency of fate points, or else you won't be able to sway the narrative when you need to. The rules encourage you to get in trouble early on; not because it's the smart thing to do, or even necessarily because it's what your character would realistically do, but because you want the fate points. You're supposed to make decisions on behalf of your character, by taking into consideration that this is a game which operates on principles that are unknown to the character. It's pure meta-gaming.

From what I recall, based on an earlier thread about Conan, the 2d20 system works on similar principles. The GM is supposed to actively antagonize you, and you're supposed to make decisions by accounting for a meta-currency which enables them to do so. You aren't allowed to actually think like your character at any point, or else DOOM will bury you.

I'm not even saying that I hate those games as games (although I still wouldn't play them under any circumstances). I just hate that they pretend to be about role-playing, while simultaneously undermining any sort of in-character decision making. It's highly disingenuous of them.

 

[Reynard]

I hate any game that claims to be an RPG, while simultaneously operating by rules that are inherently antithetical to role-playing.

FATE is the classic example. In order to play FATE, you need to engage with the meta-currency of fate points, or else you won't be able to sway the narrative when you need to. The rules encourage you to get in trouble early on; not because it's the smart thing to do, or even necessarily because it's what your character would realistically do, but because you want the fate points. You're supposed to make decisions on behalf of your character, by taking into consideration that this is a game which operates on principles that are unknown to the character. It's pure meta-gaming.

From what I recall, based on an earlier thread about Conan, the 2d20 system works on similar principles. The GM is supposed to actively antagonize you, and you're supposed to make decisions by accounting for a meta-currency which enables them to do so. You aren't allowed to actually think like your character at any point, or else DOOM will bury you.

I'm not even saying that I hate those games as games (although I still wouldn't play them under any circumstances). I just hate that they pretend to be about role-playing, while simultaneously undermining any sort of in-character decision making. It's highly disingenuous of them.

Role playing means taking on a role and acting in the way that you imagine said role would act. In both of the examples you cited, you are supposed to choose a role that would in fact engage in the activities that work with the metacurrency system. That's why you have Trouble in FATE games, for example. There are similar mechanisms in, say, Champions where you buy a bunch of Disads, but no mechanism that actually encourages you to play the role of the character possessing those Disads.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) if it does things in ways I find counterintuitive or unnecessarily complicated

2) if it uses confusing and/or complicated language and terminology. I’m a lawyer, I don’t appreciate RPG systems that read like legal codes, especially since most game designers and players don’t use language that way on a regular basis

3) if it’s a revision, it changes so much that I find it difficult or impossible to create analogues of the characters I made in previous editions. Note- I’m not talking about mechanical backwards compatibility, but being able to make PCs that feel & play similarly to those from before

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Role playing means taking on a role and acting in the way that you imagine said role would act. In both of the examples you cited, you are supposed to choose a role that would in fact engage in the activities that work with the metacurrency system. That's why you have Trouble in FATE games, for example. There are similar mechanisms in, say, Champions where you buy a bunch of Disads, but no mechanism that actually encourages you to play the role of the character possessing those Disads.

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.

 

[ccs]

2) The system is built around terrible and insupportable premises. The classic in this camp is of course, F.A.T.A.L.

I don't think that actually counts as a game.