Why Do You Hate An RPG System?

[CleverNickName]

I probably wouldn't play an RPG where character death was frequent.
And I probably wouldn't play an RPG where character death wasn't possible, either.

Like others have posted, it is frustrating to have to continually roll up new characters, especially when I'm personally vested in the backstory and the current events within the game. But also like others have posted, no matter how vested I am in the character, I will get very bored very quickly if the risk of character death is absent (or worse, engineered and predetermined by the DM/player.)

The two have to be balanced around everyone's expectations (players and DM). And that balance is going to vary from table to table. For me? I like the probability of character death to be roughly equivalent to [0 + (character level x 0.05)]: very unlikely at 1st level, but very likely indeed around 15th level. Others will prefer a different formula.

 

[Gradine]

My approach to character death is to figure out what the players would prefer and go with that.

That said, stories can have stakes, considerable ones even, without character death. In some ways, death is a deflation of stakes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not at all. It's self-evident to anyone with any imagination.

Ah I see. So your one way to play displays more imagination than more than one way.

I think your standing on some shaky ground

Really? How many imaginary friends were on your football team in high school and college?

The answer is fourteen. Obviously.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Hate is too strong a word, but there are systems I have a very low opinion of, like BRP. Badly organized, hard to use, doesn't accomplish its purpose very well.

 

[Umbran]

Not at all. It's self-evident to anyone with any imagination.

Mod Note:
Assertions of the form, "You must be mentally deficient to not agree with me or understand my point," are pretty darned rude. Leave room for folks with well-functioning minds to not agree or see what you mean, or you will find the discussion goes poorly for you.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Ah I see. So your one way to play displays more imagination than more than one way.

I think your standing on some shaky ground

Than more than one way?

It's 'you're', too.

The answer is fourteen. Obviously.

So that makes my point.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Don't worry, I don't try to force them out of their comfort zone, I mean a long time ago, yes.

I just tend to emphasize it because there are absolutely people (many of them wearing GM hats) who think repetitious character choices are such a great evil it needs to be addressed no matter what the players involved think.

Exactly, why roll? That's my philosophy now. It's kind of an odd one too, as I don't remember it in Classic either. I like rolls to actually have interesting consequences, now; where there was a time of count every bullet, role-play every distance traveled, which I don't do, not anymore, now it is cut to the action.

There are far-tail-end failure states I'm still okay being terminal, even potentially for a group, but there ought to be multiple opportunities to avoid that if its going to be a full group takeout.

I'm conflicted these days on one-shot individual takeouts; I think there should be a buffer there, but I think a lot of campaign types can benefit from at least some uncertainty. I kind of find Savage Worlds tends to be the sweet spot for me, with the open ended damage but the Bennies to buffer the hard hits.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would say there are a lot of things that make RPGs come alive. One of which is indeed risk. But there are lots of different things to risk.

Sure.

Look at Call of Cthulhu and its risk of characters’ sanity and how that changes the feel if a game versus one where the only risk is PC death. The game feels different. Look at Delta Green, where you watch as an agent’s connections to their loved ones bear the brunt of their struggles against the mythos. Look at any number of other games where concepts of identity or belief are at risk during play. Where the PCs take actual consequences from their choices along the way and need to press on anyway.

Death is far from the only interesting consequence in an RPG. At times, I’d say it’s the end of consequence.

I'm not sure for most purpose, insanity of the scale CoC might as well be death.

 

[dragoner]

I just tend to emphasize it because there are absolutely people (many of them wearing GM hats) who think repetitious character choices are such a great evil it needs to be addressed no matter what the players involved think.

There are far-tail-end failure states I'm still okay being terminal, even potentially for a group, but there ought to be multiple opportunities to avoid that if its going to be a full group takeout.

I'm conflicted these days on one-shot individual takeouts; I think there should be a buffer there, but I think a lot of campaign types can benefit from at least some uncertainty. I kind of find Savage Worlds tends to be the sweet spot for me, with the open ended damage but the Bennies to buffer the hard hits.

I agree at one point I was of the belief that "hey let's try this different character" was better, now, not so much. People should play with what they feel comfortable with.

I said in the other thread that PC death should have logic behind it, not just be random, and last time a PC was killed, the player thanked me for it too. We worked it out that was what was going to happen. Other tables will play it differently I know, and I have no real judgement against them, they are cool too.

 

[mserabian]

I would say that a GM who changes the traditional venue of TTRPGs is simply forcing his players to listen to a dull story of his own devising. Another example of the failed story-teller seeking affirmation through other venues.

Because, you see, GMs don't set the stakes of an RPG: they create and operate the world. It is the players who set the stakes and write the tale. They decide what is worth risking their PCs for, and what is not. Their actions promote consequences, which they must live and operate with (provide they survive them).

A campaign where the GM sets the stakes is simply a railroad: go hence, solve thus, proceed on to the preordained conclusion.

Well in my case. My players do not like or want their characters to die. So guess what as the DM I make sure they dont. I guess we've been having BAD WRONG FUN for 40 years.