RPG dislikes

[Superfluous Crow]

Hey
Was just wondering whether any of you have any particular dislikes about standard fantasy RPG's, such as D&D and the like?
Personally there are a couple of thinks i simply can't get myself to like:

1. Interfering gods. Well, it is fantasy we're playing of course, but still, if the gods are obviously real, much of the purpose with religions seems to be gone...
2. "Out-of-the-blue" spells. I really can't understand spells such as summon monster. I know it's a stable feature of fantasy, the wizard who can summon monsters, but the whole idea just seems a bit off, especially when there are no summoning circles or anything.
3. Monsters and spell-like abilities. Though almost only an issue in D&D, i never really understood why all the monsters had to have a dozen spell-like abilities. Of course, it made them more "special", but really, i would much rather have a unique mmonster without any nonsense magical abilities.
4. Booster items. Most magic items in most games seem to revolve around simply making the character better; stronger, faster, or harder to kill. Personally, i find items that serve a single specific purpose more interesting, since their use depends on the creativity of the player, more than just boosting their skill.

Do you have similar likes or dislikes?

[Ishmayl-Retired]

Well, some of yours I agree with, and some of yours I think you're just tired of particular tropes, as everyone gets tired of certain things after awhile. ;)

1 - Interfering deities is interesting, because I think it is (or at least, should be) based more on the role deities play in ones' world.  For instance, if one has a campaign setting which gods walk the lands, drink with their friends, and play golf with orc heads - let's say, in the style of David Eddings' The Belgariad - then one would expect that those gods would also constantly be interfering with and mucking up mortal lives.  

If one has a campaign world that is strongly based upon reality, such as "Real Earth," and religion is based on faith, and not the actual presence of omnipotent beings waving as passersby, then the fact of interference also comes down to faith (or lack thereof).  

Standard D&D (and other fantasy) is somewhere in the middle of those two paradigms.  Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, etc all have real, true gods, but they do not (except for specific times in history) walk the earth and chill with their earthbound compadres.  On the other hand, they are often known for sending prophecies, "Chosen Ones," avatars, and other vestiges of their power to the planet, and are often very used as the literally interpretation of deus ex machina.  And that is what I get tired of.  I think I am far beyond the days where stories based on the One True Savior, Following the Dictorates of the Gods please me and/or satisfy me in any way.  In Shadowfell, I have a world that tries to escape this particular trope.  Laugh at Fate, Live for Yourself, and Fancy Not the Gods' Whims.  All that just to say I kind of agree with your first peeve.

2 - No particular problem with this - I picture that if magic even exists (which, most fantasy worlds have at least some form of arcane abilities), then there's nothing wrong with using said magic to rip a hole in reality and bring denizens from another place to one's beck and call.  Many here know that my favorite fantasy series EVER is Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, by Tad Williams.  Magic is described in his series as essentially (not a direct quotation):

One can know the rules of the universe and the laws that make reality work.  And if one has considerable will power, he can bend those laws to manipulate reality.

3 -[/b]Really, you're talking about Core D&D, and even then, specific settings in Core D&D.  Shadowfell has monsters, and some have special abilities, but only those given to them by the stories and lore of standard legend and mythology.  For instance, dragons have abilities similar to dragons as we know of them in our real-world mythologies - they can breath fire, they can fly, they have manipulative abilities, etc.  However, other creatures in my setting (and many others that I know of on this site, and on other sites and other realities) follow similar rules of evolution that brought about my playable races.  Creatures that evolved from flying things can fly, creatures that evolved from slimy things can climb on walls, and creatures that evolved from carnivorous, cadaver-eating beasts retain many of those same properties - but they don't gain clairvoyant abilities, and don't learn to breath fire overnight.  

4 -I want to say this loud and clear - I may have never mentioned this on this site before, but I know I've at least implied this sentiment to my group over the years.  I HATE magic items as written by most standard fantasy!  I despise the premise of these items just lying around in treasure chests, awaiting adventurers to pick them up and save the world.  I can't stand the fact that there are just as many long swords +1 hanging around on merchants' guards in Forgotten Realms as there are regular long swords in our world.  The thought of magical belts that bring its wearer the strength of giants, of six different magical rings all blessed by various elemental powers, of chain mail that causes its wearer to blend better with shadows, and of boots that allow its wearer to leap tall buildings in a single bound - all being worn on the same person - brings a shudder of anger to me.  And I see it everywhere.  Not only that, but at least two members of my group aren't happy unless they are loaded for bear, like a magical Mad Max, with dozens of magic trinkets.  Shadowfell is taking a much different approach to magicality in mundane items.  All magic items are going to be treasures worth keeping, ancient artifacts that have a story and a history, and not a single one of them will ever be sold by a vendor in a street.  All items will be in the style of Midnight's covenant items, that bond with its bearer and gain more power over time, but they will be unique entities, handed down through the ages.  Players will be grateful by 10th level to have one dagger that is magically enhanced... at least, that's my plan.  Anyhoo, I digress.  Booster items suck.

I have my own pet peeves of course, but the one that really annoys me is when someone working on a setting just assumes that all creatures of similar race will follow the exact same culture.  As though events, locations, food sources, and histories have no impact whatsoever.  I mean, seriously, here on the "real world," human beings have hundreds, if not thousands of cultures just in the Taker world.  That says nothing of the hundreds or thousands more in the Leaver world.  So the thought in a setting that all humans act exactly the same as another, and all elves worship the same deities as another, and all dwarves are stone-cutting fools grates on my nerves a bit.  That's my peeve.  Hopefully someone will write an essay about it.

[LordVreeg]

OMG.
You whipped this one out.  Are you crazY???? :morons:

My whole campaign and rule set is based on a list of peeves, dislikes, and actual disdain.

I don't even know where to start....
Big Picture?  Games that are not suited to the games people are playing.  If the rule system has 80-90% of their rules, spells, abilities, skills, etc based on combat, why play a roleplaying heavy game?  If the primary growth of a character is in their ability to take more damage than a dragon, then this might not be the game for immerssive role-playing.
Similarly, if 90% of the spells a character gains are useful only in combat, but the logical caNtrips and minor spells that would exist ijn a civilization have been ignored, probably not a good game for apolitical game.  
It's just blindly using the wrong tool for the job.

I can't leave this one alone.  I could go on all day.
I agree with you on the booster items. Powerful magic should be rare ond wonderful.  Magic may be understood to some degree, and lesser magic may be common, but when people actually sell the stuff in a world, or when death has no meaning except getting a priest, or when raiseing the dead is a mjid level spell, this peeves me.

I can't stand simplistic, static religions at all.  Gods are mysterious, beyond the ken of mortals, and should be treated that way, not just like slightly older and more powerful mortals.  Religions should inspire, and should be based on faith.  Not just a bunch of stupid stats in a book: that approach is what stated the whole childish, ridiculous 'epic' games.  (I'm venting, I know, and I apologize)

[SDragon]

OMG.
You whipped this one out.  Are you crazY???? :morons:

My whole campaign and rule set is based on a list of peeves, dislikes, and actual disdain.

I don't even know where to start....
Big Picture?  Games that are not suited to the games people are playing.  If the rule system has 80-90% of their rules, spells, abilities, skills, etc based on combat, why play a roleplaying heavy game?  If the primary growth of a character is in their ability to take more damage than a dragon, then this might not be the game for immerssive role-playing.
Similarly, if 90% of the spells a character gains are useful only in combat, but the logical caNtrips and minor spells that would exist ijn a civilization have been ignored, probably not a good game for apolitical game.  
It's just blindly using the wrong tool for the job.

Agreed. One reason why I'm developing a subtle preference for other systems. As far as I'm concerned, d20 is the first system I played with, and even if only for sentimental reasons, I still enjoy the system. It had some flaws, sure, but I can deal with those. Not that you can't roleplay in d20, or even in Monopoly, but it's just not very well supported.

Games like, say, Vampire, on the other hand, support roleplaying very well. I'm still not convinced that I enjoy the genre enough to play the game consistently, but I do enjoy the way it seems to encourage imagination.

[Superfluous Crow]

Okay, it's true that my dislike of interfering gods might be more due to the almost omni-present nature of them; everybody uses them (well, almost). But as LordVreeg states, it's not just that they actually exist, but also that they in many cases are simply just extremely powerful mortals. The whole mystical aspect surrounding them kind of disappears.Though there are exceptions of course. And i'm glad we are all agreed on the booster items, though i don't think that all magic items should be artifact-level; some might just be powerful "tools" that serve a specific purpose. But that might just be me. I can't say i agree with you on the Out-of-the-blue issue though. Magic is, of course, by definition the rules of physics being broken, but the thought of calling forth a sentient or semi-sentient being from nothing just makes no sense at all. Did the mage just suddenly craft an entire set of memories and knowledge/instinct? I can understand demons and elementals to a certain degree, as they are by definition so otherworldly that they clearly don't belong in this world, but i just can't wrap my head around the others...
And you're right; the really bad monsters are usually limited to the splatbooks. But i sometimes just think that they take a generally good monster concept and then give it extra hit dice and abilities, just so that it will get a higher CR.  

[Stargate525]

I feel I have to comment on the magical item overload hate mentioned here...

One way to easily strip that away is to, instead of making things +1 - +5, simply make five more degrees of masterwork. That way, you can still have a sword forged from the heartiron of the mountain of holiness, which fifty slaves bent over for a century to produce. It's not magical, but it's still pretty damn impressive. Under this, the weapon is still better than a normal masterwork weapon, but still isn't magic. Same thing for armor. This, I think, would solve quite a few problems off the bat.

[Nomadic]

If there is one thing that I hate... it is people just giving into the cliches of RPG gaming. The big one for me is the ever classic starting in a tavern. Nothing makes me want to bean my DM over the head more then that. That is just one of the very many things that is just too overused (though if done right in a parody it can be entertaining).

[Superfluous Crow]

Well, taverns are usually the places where people meet ^^
But i can follow you; there are more interesting venues.
Anyway, as far as clichés go, i'm beginning to dislike dragons. Agreed, they are awesome in all their reptilian fury, but everybody is using them everywhere.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

I feel I have to comment on the magical item overload hate mentioned here...

One way to easily strip that away is to, instead of making things +1 - +5, simply make five more degrees of masterwork. That way, you can still have a sword forged from the heartiron of the mountain of holiness, which fifty slaves bent over for a century to produce. It's not magical, but it's still pretty damn impressive. Under this, the weapon is still better than a normal masterwork weapon, but still isn't magic. Same thing for armor. This, I think, would solve quite a few problems off the bat.

I actually already do something similar to that, but it still doesn't solve the problem that these "More powerful than normal" items litter the world like wasted styrofoam cups.  My problem is more based on the frequency of the items.  But yeah, good idea :)

Anyway, as far as clichés go, i'm beginning to dislike dragons. Agreed, they are awesome in all their reptilian fury, but everybody is using them everywhere.

It's just about using them in interesting ways. :)  What if dragons (like in LotR, or MST) are unique entities, and they don't just spawn like rabbits?  There's a nice way to make them fearsome and interesting again without even having to put any planning into it! :)

[snakefing]

Along the lines of Vreeg: Giving stats to gods. Once you do that, the temptation for the power gamers to try to raise their stats up to that level is well nigh irresistable.

My biggest peeve with D&D (any edition prior to 4e, I don't know enough about 4e) is the virtual impossibility of creating a magic system with any distinctive flavor to it, without redesigning the whole system.

[beejazz]

Peeves?

Balance. Rules are meant to be broken. I prefer to either play fast and loose, making rulings based on what make sense and figuring out what the actual rules were only after the game is over or to run a horrible draconian minmaxing fest, where we adhere to the letter rather than the spirit of the law. Like the one with my cherry picked dwarf who makes four sneak attacks on every single charge.

Stuff making sense. It's not always supposed to. My city has an undercity. No one knows why. There isn't actually any reason. But it gives me an excuse to let players explore the vomitorium chamber in the underground mansion.

The assumption that what happens at the table should behave like this or that book, movie, etc. As far as my players are concerned, the literature I emulate is a tragedy. Everybody dies sooner or later, and if the PCs play long enough, they're likely to see it happen at the table. It's not about living forever or pwning every badguy. It's about making the best of the time you've got and having a good run.

Scheduling conflicts. They screw up games more often than anything in the books.

Magic that I don't get. Realism be damned. I should be able to figure out fairly easily by looking at their sheets what my characters are capable of. No on the fly. No stupidly modifiable point buy.

Magic that's dumbed down so I can get it. Every spell (or whatever it is in your world) should do something different. There don't need to be 450 spells for lighting people on fire somehow.

Players that quickly have what in the setting would be more money than god. Most players will go along with what hooks the GM will give them, but I like having money still be scarce and therefore important enough to motivate the PCs. In fact, I prefer it to the "imminent danger to you" motivation, just because it's a bit of a stretch to keep the PCs constantly in danger somehow.

Combat where PCs and NPCs constantly exchange blows in an uninteresting manner. Hit/miss/damage if hit. Repeat until death.

Combat that's chock full of signature moves to "spice things up", but which devolves into the former scenario, because an attack is still an attack no matter what you call it.

XP systems. I'm sorry, but level ups don't have to be that complicated. "You level up when the GM says so." would suffice.

[snakefing]

On a note related to Vreeg's comments:
[blockquote=LordVreeg]If the primary growth of a character is in their ability to take more damage than a dragon, then this might not be the game for immerssive [sic] role-playing.[/blockquote]
I'd like to see a game with some kind of reasonable rules or mechanics for development that is NOT just improvement in combat and personal skills. Such as a system for increasing influence and/or reputation in ways that are fairly hard and crunchy rather soft and fluffy.

Ideally, these kind of rules would work alongside the regular sort of personal improvement. This would allow the character's development as a hero in the social sense - influence and reputation - as well as the personal sense - heroic skills and powers.

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=Snakefing]My biggest peeve with D&D (any edition prior to 4e, I don't know enough about 4e) is the virtual impossibility of creating a magic system with any distinctive flavor to it, without redesigning the whole system.[/blockquote]
That's why I had to make my own.
First off, in a swords & Sorcery style game, magic is crucial.  It is a cornerstone, and magic is normally tied to the cosmology and creation of the world as well, or should be.  So I do believe the creative muse is skewed or partially squelched when someone just plugs in a basic, generic system.  If you say you created your setting, and your mages are casting magic missle as a first level spells, you created a lot less than other people in the CBG.  Love this place and all you guys, but this is just plain speaking.

[blockquote=Beeb]XP systems. I'm sorry, but level ups don't have to be that complicated. "You level up when the GM says so." would suffice.[/blockquote]  Totally disagree.  Love and all props to the mad artman, but I will always believe that setting up growth rewards based on anything but quantifiable responses to actions was when D&D stopped being an adult game that some intelligent teenagers played and started becoming a game aimed towards kids.  Make them earn it.  
One of the first things I did was directly setting up a system where each skill used got experience in that skill.
Leading to another Kvetch...
I hate systems that make your finding traps skills go up when you kill something!!!!!!
I killed something.   That should only make me get better at Killing Things.
When a character uses 'Basic Contact' to find a certain person in a city, they should get better at that ability...not get better hit points.  AAARRRR!

[beejazz]

[blockquote=Beeb]XP systems. I'm sorry, but level ups don't have to be that complicated. "You level up when the GM says so." would suffice.[/blockquote]  Totally disagree.  Love and all props to the mad artman, but I will always believe that setting up growth rewards based on anything but quantifiable responses to actions was when D&D stopped being an adult game that some intelligent teenagers played and started becoming a game aimed towards kids.  Make them earn it.  
One of the first things I did was directly setting up a system where each skill used got experience in that skill.
Leading to another Kvetch...
I hate systems that make your finding traps skills go up when you kill something!!!!!!
I killed something.   That should only make me get better at Killing Things.
When a character uses 'Basic Contact' to find a certain person in a city, they should get better at that ability...not get better hit points.  AAARRRR!

I should revise that to "XP systems for level-based advancement." Your thing, where players advance their skills based on what skills they use, or a well done xp mass where skill and ability enhancement have set costs... that's its own thing, and is cool. I go with level based advancement for convenience and ease of use as opposed to realism. It's better to be easy *or* realistic than to utilize mechanics for both and end up being neither. xp systems for level ups isn't easy, and often doesn't add anything in terms of realism/flexibility either.

[Lmns Crn]

First off, in a swords & Sorcery style game, magic is crucial. It is a cornerstone, and magic is normally tied to the cosmology and creation of the world as well, or should be. So I do believe the creative muse is skewed or partially squelched when someone just plugs in a basic, generic system. If you say you created your setting, and your mages are casting magic missle as a first level spells, you created a lot less than other people in the CBG. Love this place and all you guys, but this is just plain speaking.

Hmm... Goodness knows I've been a vocal advocate of cooking up from-scratch magic systems, but I don't think that using familiar, prepackaged options indicates any creativity deficiency. Plenty of people use stock magic systems as-is or with only minor variation, but plenty of people also use stock fantasy races (dwarves, elves, goblins, trolls, etc.) as-is or with only minor variations-- even people who protest that their dwarves, for example, have nothing whatsoever to do with D&D dwarves are still piggybacking on decades of literature and centuries of mythology and superstition. I don't buy the argument that reusing one is a cardinal sin, but reusing the other is not even worth mentioning.

I mean, sure I cook my own chicken, but I still make my cornbread from a box.