RPG dislikes

[Raelifin]

Alright, D&D and many others. I hear Mutants and Masterminds is good.

I'm a little confused by "such games should be chosen for that reason." Care to elaborate?

[LordVreeg]

In danger of completely derailing a thread...
(again).

Ishy, you reap what you sow.  I totally agree with you as a GM, and have very carefully scaled things to fit the frequency ditribution I want, in that I have created a ratio of the power of the item versus the commonality of it.  So when you have players that expect or aspire to conditions different than you, that is a GM issue.  Or it could be called another case of the 'campaign vs system' issue, when the players are expecting something due to the game system that is actually different in your campiagn setting.

On the other hand, I am looking at the rebuttal from the esteemed Brainface, and am just as critical there.
His first and second points are pure 'campaign vs system'.  
If +1 swords are really rare in a setting, and that almost all damage and % to hit gains are small, this could be worth it.  But in said setting, it would be worth correspondingly more. And as for the math on the second point, this is purely coming from the above 'campaign vs. system', in that the math is purely about a system first and not a setting. Game balance is, as Raelifin inferred while responding to a different bit, a question of GMing.  It sounds like purely different expectations, to put it another way.

Issue 3 is more interesting, because this is more about the style of the game.  George, a mysteriarch in my Igbar group, uses a set of hobtaskulis (long triple claws).  They are a rare weapon.  So while other members of the group have found some minorly enhanced weapons, he has had to have a set of meteoric Iron/Omnian Steel Hobtaskulis made, since the setting does not have many magic ones.
Yes, I am the first one to advocate for a game being a shared storytelling, with the GM providing the context and the setting, and the plaeyrs providing the protagonists.  But in an established setting, players should know what they are getting into when they create a fencer, or some other custom character.  If the well-established setting was set up so that there were few magic items and most of them were greatswords and butterknifes, making a character that is a master of the goedendag could be construed as 'making your own bed'.  
Now, to be fair, I will be the first one to admit to shifting the weight of special items to try to balance things after a while, becasue I want all the players to have their days in the sun.  I'dd be lying if I did not admit that.

Now, to get onto a real 'RPG dislike', and trying to get back to the thread a little bit...
Magic Item 'stores', the idea that magic is so plebian and unspecial as to be sold in shoppes is antipathetical to my idea of a good game: the concepts are at odds.  Obviously, many setting and games work this way, but most of us manage to move past it.  

And my take on this
[blockquote=His Ish]I HATE magic items as written by most standard fantasy! [/blockquote]
Is that he meant written by most standard fantasy games.  Since the next few comments deal with settings and games only, I think Ishy was saying that the treatment magic items get in most games makes them too normal and common.
Ish, am I onto you, or am I just on something?

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I'm a little confused by "such games should be chosen for that reason." Care to elaborate?

D&D, or any other system that pre-makes a character's selectable choices for mechanical interaction with the game, is best used when one wants to have most of the work figuring out how an ability will function and/or what ability they will have derived from a source already done for them.  This takes one or more steps out of the character creation process and allows you to get to the game quicker at the expense of customization.

Example: In D&D if you want to be a dwarven bard you just pick the options marked "dwarf" and "bard" and you only have a few more tiny mechanical decisions to make before your character is done.  In contrast M&M would need you to figure out what abilities being a dwarf and then a bard grant you and then build them yourself.  Just to provide an even more simple example, in Castles & Crusades (I think) you're done after having picked "dwarf" and "bard", only one extra bit.

[Nomadic]

I love the games that let you craft your own style. Granted cookie cutter classes/races is fine for quick games (which is why I own the 3.5 core). But the ability to shape your character beyond standard roleplay is why I am making UR classless/skill-based.

[Raelifin]

Pre-built packages are fun, but so is customization. A good system is fast and simple, but it built upon a flexible and deep framework which is hopefully visible for those who want more ability to customize their characters. The fact that D&D doesn't provide any justification for their class, feat, spell, monster, magic item, and race balancing means that it is ultimately harder for these elements to be added without upsetting the balance. Additionally, it is nearly impossible to determine the gold-piece-equivalent of an extra feat, or extra level, and thus reduces the ways in which the party can be diverse.

I like pre-built, fast rules. I also like dynamic and flexible rules. They are compatible.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I like pre-built, fast rules. I also like dynamic and flexible rules. They are compatible.

Without sacrificing character concept options?  I've never found one.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

I think one way of addressing a lot of the issues about magic - items especially in a setting can be addressed by stepping back and looking at the implications more full then moving forward in reflecting those implications in fully and sensibly in that greater context. If we look at the magic item lists in most game systems, whether D&D, GURPS, Shadowrun from the perspective of what would people in general develop in a world where magic is researched and applied as a practical (hence, marketable) form of technology, making magic itself (as a form of power/energy quantifiable in terms of force/work done) and the skill in its use an identifiable marketplace commodity- i.e., offers affordable (or at least comparatively cost effective) and innovative solutions to common problems and needs, it quickly becomes apparent that the lists are woefully and glaringly incomplete when it comes to actually illustrating those uses. In most settings where magic is ubiquitous enough to fulfill the above requirements (which is an inherent implication of its description in most systems) the vast majority of spells and items actually present in the world portrayed would be developed and produced for the purpose of meeting the needs and desires of an equivalently high proportion of the setting's population, that is the faceless, nameless, character-classless masses of NPCs who are (properly) glossed over at the table as they have no direct impact upon the story in play and with whom characters have absolutely no, even incidental, interaction. (Even the faceless crowd in the market square with which PCs have a peripheral interaction as a whole, whether trying to address and influence a public mob or trying to simple hide among or avoid as mobile obstacles in the shifting urban terrain constitute only a small fraction of 1% of the city's total population.) The thing is, the spell and item lists only include things which PCs would be interested in - the vast majority of spells and items which should inherently exist are simply irrelevant to 99% or more of the characters which players will create. When was the last time a player/character asked about the availability (in the absence of electricity) of some form of magically powered toaster or ceiling fan? One of the most obvious fields of applied magic which PCs would likely want to be aware of, even if not choosing to learn themselves, is rarely addressed even though the basics for it are virtually always specifically provided - that of forensic magic. (Shadowrun being a clear exception here as this matters *a lot* in actual play; I've only found a broad sampling of good, direct examples in the old - 1st/2nd ed. AD&D compatible, public domain compilation circulated electronically as The Great Net Spellbook.)

This is something LV has taken pains to address in creating the system mechanics underpinning Celtricia and can probably offer numerous practical examples. Ultimately this can be addressed within a setting using a published mechanical rule set with some expansion of its magical system. If you step back a moment and look at magic in your setting in the commercial terms I've outlined above, the general scaling of the commonality/rarity of spells, casters, items and their makers can rather easily be accomplished as a function of cost/benefit, which ratio can automatically reflect/create a consistent inverse proportion of commonality to power at whatever progression of ratio is desired. If need be, duration or "permanence" can further be used in adjusting this, i.e. the "permanent" duration of an Arcane Lock spell cast upon a door doesn't necessarily mean that someone approaching the same door a thousand, a hundred, or even 1 year later will still find it magically secured. Hence magical motive power to drive a small fan in a room for a year might be affordable to the average city tradesman of relative financial security (though not necessarily of high enough priority to choose to spend the money on rather than, say some other desired furnishing or well made household tools) while the magical motive power to propel a naval vessel for even a portion of its expected structural life could still be beyond the means of most governments to invest in their flagship - much less a fleet of such magic driven warships.

Other reasonable considerations can also directly affect the prevalence of items. In most historic "medieval" societies a serf or even peasant could face sever penalties if discovered to be in possession of a sword or other purely martial weapon. Where hunting was the sole privilege of the ruling manorial lord, possession of spears, bows and similar hunting weapons might be as much or even more severely penalized; since poaching was typically a capitol crime, possession of the tools could be considered proof of the crime, or at the very least the intent to do so and amounting to the same thing. . .  How much more so than would the right to possess a magically enhanced weapon be restricted? Even if +1 weapons could be produced in sufficient quantity and cheaply enough to render them "common" the market for them is still only driven by demand and in this case likely a very small segment of the arms market as a whole. If a ten year magical hotplate costs the same as a +1 dagger there's still going to be a whole lot more of the former present and available in the world regardless of which the game's player's are more interested in. . .

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

One idea I thought of long ago was to move the location of special abilities from the item to the character.  Instead of giving out insanely vast amounts of money give them "power points" in the same ratio and either let the players choose what magic enhancements their characters get or the DM can assign them if he/she wants more control.

In some cases, such as the cloak of arachnidia, this might not make much sense but it's really intended for the simple stat boosters like +1 weapons and cloaks of resistence.

[Superfluous Crow]

Magically enhanced by being subjected to "magical radiation" over a long time while adventuring. :-p
This is shaping up to be my most popular thread. Not sure whether i should be happy or disappointed seeing that this beats my game material threads by several pages ^^
anyway, another dislike:
How *some* roleplaying games make "new" monsters by adding an elemental aspect to them. Why the hell is there a scorpion with lightning claws in MM 4e?? (mind you, that was just an example)

[LordVreeg]

'New monster, just add wings' approach...

[snakefing]

Monsters should be monstrous, frightening, rare, wonderful, terrifying. Not something to be battled and defeated on a routine basis.

Just sayin'.

[Superfluous Crow]

Snakefing, was that for or against my dislike, or something completely separate?

[snakefing]

Mostly parallel, I guess. If you need to start creating monsters by adding incongruous elements like lightning claws (huh?), you've already gone too far in making "normal" monsters too routine. There should be no such thing as a "normal" monster.

But my complaint goes beyond just making new monsters in strange and kludgy ways. Even your monsters should either be promoted to full-fledged members of the ecosystem (in which case, they are more like the flora and fauna of your fantasy world, not monsters per se); or you should use them sparingly so as to preserve their status as true "monsters" or "aberrations" - objects of wonder and dread.

[Nomadic]

I agree strongly with this. If you want your monsters everywhere it makes more sense if they are a part of the local flora/fauna then just random aberrations everywhere.

Another thing I have an issue with is when gods are always a provable fact. Look at real life, can you prove that any of the religions (or those without religion) are right? Now granted this isn't real life but it does have a basis in it. I think it is nice from time to time to have a society where there are many different types of worshipers and no measurable way to find out which of them is right.

[Superfluous Crow]

I totally agree with you on the provable gods thing, Nomadic, something i also think i made clear in the very first post.