RPG dislikes

[LordVreeg]

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.

Nope, sorry, don't buy it.
(this is a peeve thread, so I'm being peeved...But more enjoying the exchange)

Everything else you mentioned is a component, a few lines or a chapter of a rulebook.  And still, I think everyone here takes the time to make them their own to a large degree.
But magic is like gravity.  It is often a universal law (or it isn't at all) and is often at a fundamental level of how or why the universe exists.  Reusing or even traslating  and changing whole races is on a completely different level.  Go look up how big the description of elves is in any rulebook.  Now look at how much space is devoted to the spellbooks.  You're comparing 'bazooka joe' with 'Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn', and giving them equal weight.

Or in other words, take trolls or elves out of the game, minor change.  Take out magic, and you're probably playing at a table by yourself.

Now, to go back on that and partially agree with you...I give some credit for those who change things to make them their own, but that should also apply for those who take portions of a prepackaged system and make the same kind of changes to make it their own.  It is just that magic is a cornerstone issue...thus it should be one of the first things looked at to make a setting unique.  

[Lmns Crn]

Aww man, no bards in your world? :( :( :(

and that was the last I heard from him.

Man, I'm a musician by trade, but I don't get the logic behind turning down a perfectly good game just because you can't play a prancing, dancing dope (even though it'd be even easier to play a social-specialized/combat-support character!) So, apparently some people are actually that picky?

Man, that was a big tangent.

[LordVreeg]

You mihgt have seen how important Bards are in the social strata of Celtricia.  They are one of the major bridges from the high to the low.

I am definitly going to start a new bardic salon in Igbar called the 'Prancing, Dancing Dope'.

[Lmns Crn]

You mihgt have seen how important Bards are in the social strata of Celtricia.  They are one of the major bridges from the high to the low.

Not every important profession needs its own character class and commensurate magic power, though. (Edit: Especially in settings like most typical D&D fare, where, unlike in Celtricia, absolutely no attention is played to the social and societal functions of musicians, anyway.)

I am definitly going to start a new bardic salon in Igbar called the 'Prancing, Dancing Dope'.

I'd join.

[LordVreeg]

You mihgt have seen how important Bards are in the social strata of Celtricia.  They are one of the major bridges from the high to the low.

Not every important profession needs its own character class and commensurate magic power, though. (Edit: Especially in settings like most typical D&D fare, where, unlike in Celtricia, absolutely no attention is played to the social and societal functions of musicians, anyway.)

I am definitly going to start a new bardic salon in Igbar called the 'Prancing, Dancing Dope'.

Dude, you know I'm classless...
(cue drumroll)
I merely have selections of skills and different places to learn them.  There is no difference between how a baker or a knight is handled.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

Prancing, Dancing Dopes: they patrons of those salons in my settings usually aren't bards, tho' most of them *think* they are (and dress like rogues. no, wait, in 3.5, they dress like "sorcerers". . .)

Slightly more seriously (the previous wasn't really a joke. . .) one thing they did for bards late in 2.0 that I liked was set up a framework for performance careers. The class emphasis was very much on bards as, well, *bards* - the class abilities were part of the background of a performer in a magic-active fantasy setting. Troubadours might be a better term for the class, but anyway, they set up a means of tracking performance, popularity and fame. Suddenly in 3.x, bards had to have Perform skills, but actually using them to *perform* in public was a side note for picking up a few silver in between game sessions! I like the idea that bards actually do more than gyrate in front of drooling groupies (though they should certainly be provided in game opportunity to do that too,) along the lines of the social (and mythological) significance/roles of Celtic Bards and Scandinavian Skalds - but those guys were kick-ass performing artists, "kick-ass" just meant in that context what most rappers want to pretend it means now. . .

The preceding has been a Public Service Announcement from the Curmudgeons' Guild Local 23.

[Kaptn'Lath]

I got a couple to kick into the fire...

1) Classes. Period. Make a character that can do what you want him to do, as you progress let him learn you need him to, and call yourself whatever makes sence to NPCs of the world. Ex. You should be able to call yourself a knight without having to take the Paladine Class (or Knight from PHB2). However to call yourself a knight your character should show himself be "knight-like" what was that called again... oh yes Role Playing! Yes that right let the players role playing outline what TYPE of person he is and how he should act. Let the Setting react apropriatly. (i guess that was kinda two rants sandwiched into one.. heh)

2) Stupid/Bloodthirsty Orks. Orc are feared warriors and their armies/hoards terrorise nations and continents yet they cant speak a full sentence to each other even in common or orkish. Orks have a society and no 95% of Orks are not male hunters. There are villages, communities, families, baby and children Orks. They do more than sit around in a 10x10 room or a 5x40 corridor defending something they could sell or use. They should be as cunning (not intellegence, but wisdom and instincts) as elves are arrogant/noble.

3)6 feet tall and bullet proof... well untill 0 hp then yer toast. The full power untill you drop problem isnt everywhere there are systems out there that do it better (and i hope "bloodied" in 4e is as good and debilitating as i hope but i doubt it)

4) Charisma: mainly how its used and percieved in recent RPG. there should not be a roled stat limiting (or forceing and pushing you) how friendly/likeable you can act when you ROLEPLAY. Hard stats should not replace roleplaying. Imagine the Player is acting like a dirk insulting his daughter and local town and then asks the shopkeep for a discount. DM "Uh no...?" Player "But i got a 17 charisma for a +5 with a bonus from my ring (Buff magic) i rolled 17 he HAS to give me the discount now" BANG BANG BANG the DMs head on the table. Not in MY world buddy...
and you can count me in on about half the ones posted already.

probebly got more but i am tired, just got home from work and going to bed. Any other good peeves?

[Stargate525]

I know this isn't the place for it, but I'm trying to come down off of a long posted assertion-whupping in an online debate...

1) Classes. Period. Make a character that can do what you want him to do, as you progress let him learn you need him to, and call yourself whatever makes sence to NPCs of the world. Ex. You should be able to call yourself a knight without having to take the Paladine Class (or Knight from PHB2). However to call yourself a knight your character should show himself be "knight-like" what was that called again... oh yes Role Playing! Yes that right let the players role playing outline what TYPE of person he is and how he should act. Let the Setting react apropriatly. (i guess that was kinda two rants sandwiched into one.. heh)

No one says that because you took the fighter class everyone in the world calls you a fighter. Heck, the majority of my nobility has levels of rogue, but no one calls them that except for a very few, and always with the word 'dashing' in front of it.

2) Stupid/Bloodthirsty Orks. Orc are feared warriors and their armies/hoards terrorise nations and continents yet they cant speak a full sentence to each other even in common or orkish. Orks have a society and no 95% of Orks are not male hunters. There are villages, communities, families, baby and children Orks. They do more than sit around in a 10x10 room or a 5x40 corridor defending something they could sell or use. They should be as cunning (not intellegence, but wisdom and instincts) as elves are arrogant/noble.

Nothing here to say except that it's laid out in the rules, it's just that the majority of people simply ignore it. Change starts with you. As for your comparison on elves... re-read the entire personality description of the elf in the PHB. ;)

3)6 feet tall and bullet proof... well untill 0 hp then yer toast. The full power untill you drop problem isnt everywhere there are systems out there that do it better (and i hope "bloodied" in 4e is as good and debilitating as i hope but i doubt it)

Meh, it's an abstraction. It's something I sit on the fence about, but I see your point. It's also a simple bolt-on to fix; simply assign penalties you feel are appropriate at certain fractions of health remaining.  

4) Charisma: mainly how its used and percieved in recent RPG. there should not be a roled stat limiting (or forceing and pushing you) how friendly/likeable you can act when you ROLEPLAY. Hard stats should not replace roleplaying. Imagine the Player is acting like a dirk insulting his daughter and local town and then asks the shopkeep for a discount. DM "Uh no...?" Player "But i got a 17 charisma for a +5 with a bonus from my ring (Buff magic) i rolled 17 he HAS to give me the discount now" BANG BANG BANG the DMs head on the table. Not in MY world buddy...

You're forgetting the -10 bonus for insulting the daughter in front of the shopkeeper, the -10 for insulting the town, and the fact that these actions have dropped his attitude a couple of points from when you first walked in.

Again, the rules and guidelines are there, it's just that nobody uses them correctly.

[Ra-Tiel]

[...]

3)6 feet tall and bullet proof... well untill 0 hp then yer toast. The full power untill you drop problem isnt everywhere there are systems out there that do it better (and i hope "bloodied" in 4e is as good and debilitating as i hope but i doubt it)

Wrong. You need some sort of abstraction, otherwise all gaming grinds down to who gets initative and one-shots the other guy first (similar to how high-level casters are in 3.5). Now, how many swords to the gut can you take? Bullets to the chest? Severed major arteries? 3rd degree burns on 50% of your body?

And this abstraction is provided by HP. Other systems (especially WoD's damage track) fall also quite unelegantly flat on their faces because they are not meant to simulate reality, but merely provide some sort of abstraction (although in a different way).

4) Charisma: mainly how its used and percieved in recent RPG. there should not be a roled stat limiting (or forceing and pushing you) how friendly/likeable you can act when you ROLEPLAY. Hard stats should not replace roleplaying. Imagine the Player is acting like a dirk insulting his daughter and local town and then asks the shopkeep for a discount. DM "Uh no...?" Player "But i got a 17 charisma for a +5 with a bonus from my ring (Buff magic) i rolled 17 he HAS to give me the discount now" BANG BANG BANG the DMs head on the table. Not in MY world buddy...
and you can count me in on about half the ones posted already. [...]

On the contrary. Imho stats should be the decisive thing to consider when roleplaying social interactions. Oh my, if I had a dollar for every occasion when the Cha 10 Diplomacy 0 guy was making deals with NPCs because the PLAYER was having a good way with words.

Again, if you allow PLAYER knowledge to impact social interaction (for which there are mechanics), then you must allow PLAYER knowledge to impact combat interaction, e.g. allowing a character to kill someone in battle because the player describes some uber-leet stunt he learned in his fencing class.

And as for your example... ever heard of "circumstance penalties"? ;)

[Ra-Tiel]

[...] I hate systems that make your finding traps skills go up when you kill something!!!!!![...]

Then probably most of game systems are out of the window for you. :P

Seriously, most systems use either level-based advancement, or some sort of "buy better skills and stuff with XPs" advancement. The latter also has your problem (aka "I survived the orc ambush and now spend XPs to increase my Basketweaving skill").

A simple solution I suggested like decades ago when I was still working on the Worldgate setting was that you track the number of successful uses of each skill (Elder Scrolls style) and have the skill automatically increase when a certain number of successes was reached. It was shot down quickly as "too much bookkeeping", "too complicated", "not worth the hassle", etc.

Well... :dots:

[snakefing]

Runequest had a system where you could only improve a skill by using it. I never played it but I heard that in some cases the result was that people would try their skills on anything, like having everybody in the group try to pick a lock even though they had basically no chance, just to spread the chance for skill improvement around.

XP doesn't really bother me too much, but the D&D peeve is just that they have elaborate systems for determining XP for certain types of things (e.g., killing things) and no guidelines at all for other things.

[beejazz]

A simple solution I suggested like decades ago when I was still working on the Worldgate setting was that you track the number of successful uses of each skill (Elder Scrolls style) and have the skill automatically increase when a certain number of successes was reached. It was shot down quickly as "too much bookkeeping", "too complicated", "not worth the hassle", etc.

Well... :dots:

Have you considered just keeping track of which skills a player uses in a game session period rather than how many times they use that game? If you're using a roll-under system, you can wait till the end of the session, have each player pick one skill they used during the session to level up, and try to roll over it. If they do, increase it by some preset amount.

Or if you're rolling over, reverse the formula, and roll under to see if you advance.

[LordVreeg]

A simple solution I suggested like decades ago when I was still working on the Worldgate setting was that you track the number of successful uses of each skill (Elder Scrolls style) and have the skill automatically increase when a certain number of successes was reached. It was shot down quickly as "too much bookkeeping", "too complicated", "not worth the hassle", etc.

Well... :dots:

Have you considered just keeping track of which skills a player uses in a game session period rather than how many times they use that game? If you're using a roll-under system, you can wait till the end of the session, have each player pick one skill they used during the session to level up, and try to roll over it. If they do, increase it by some preset amount.

Or if you're rolling over, reverse the formula, and roll under to see if you advance.

Um, we actually keep experience in each skill.  This was in direct response to me being ticked off at the other types of systems.  You get a little experience when you fail, more if you succeed.
(taking damage gets you experience in HP...it's kind of fun...)

[Stargate525]

That would no doubt make for interesting training session conversation.

'So remind me why we're using real swords?'
'makes ya tougher damnit!'

[Snargash Moonclaw]

(taking damage gets you experience in HP...it's kind of fun...)

Like LARPing "Victoria Fantasy" in most inner city dungeons. . .