PDA

View Full Version : [Preferences] How strong are yours?



Kiero
2009-02-02, 08:05 AM
I find my preferences in terms of what I like and don't like in games is strong. When applied either to system or setting, there's stuff I love in games, and stuff I really hate. It even gets to the level of genre conventions, tropes, themes and character concepts. There isn't much accomodation-room either, if I don't like something I generally won't play with it. Or if I do, I have to bite my tongue and just endure.

I'm finding this is being brought out really clearly on the system side of the equation playing two games I quite enjoy (unorthodox WFRP and Star Wars) with two systems I loathe (WFRP's native one, and basically anything D20, even if Saga Editon is less painful than everything else out there with the badge on). I like the character-level stuff that's going on, generally hate the interactions with the system whenever it intrudes. And it often does feel like intruding. I'm not big on immersion, I just rile every time we have to use a system I don't much care for.

It's one of the things I hate about random chargen, it has an ability to produce all sorts of characters I know I don't want to play. What I like to play is human, combat-ready generalists. I like to be handy in a fight, and have a breadth of skills that apply outside of a fight. That's it. I don't like specialist characters, I don't like non-combatants, I generally can't stand any character who relies on some unreliable and unpredictable "power" (like mages), I don't like playing non-humans.

Same goes with GMing. There are systems and settings I am willing to run, and others I won't even countenance. Same goes themes and character concepts; I hate "villains" as PCs for example, I only run games featuring heroes. Doesn't matter who the players are, doesn't matter how it's pitched or modified, if I don't like it, I won't run it.

Funny thing is they haven't mellowed with age and experience, quite the opposite. I've played about a dozen or so systems in my 15-ish years of roleplaying. It seems as I get older and try new things, they become more defined and distinct. The things I like become more appealing, the things I don't even less so. My discoveries with systems tend not to be "wow, this does something I'd never considered before", but rather "wow, this does what I've been looking for something to do better than the things I've seen up til now".

Sometimes I get the feeling I'm in a minority having strong preferences.

averagejoe
2009-02-04, 02:18 AM
My preferences are not very strong at all. Then again, that's how I live life; trying not to get worked about things that aren't worth getting worked up over. The only really strong preferences I have are for the sort of people I'll play with, i.e. people who don't really irritate me.

Halaster
2009-02-04, 02:45 AM
Hi.

You're not quite alone. I know some players like yourself. My girlfriend is one. She loves daring, swashbuckling, charming heroes. She doesn't care for most anything else. So she hates systems along the lines of "fighters are stupid, hulking, frothing-at-the-mouth combat machines that can't do anything but wear heavy armor and hack at stuff with biiiig blades." Accordingly, she also likes her game worlds a little more upbeat (definitely not WFRP). Anything else, she just doesn't play. Not that she couldn't, she just won't, because she hates every minute of it.

Me on the other hand, I'm extremely relaxed about that. I play whatever the system serves me. In fact, I love random character generation, like in WFRP or Traveller, exactly because it challenges my preconceptions and forces me to kick the habit. Same goes for systems. I hate bad systems, clunky and unoriginal ones. Otherwise, I'll just play them.

As a GM, I'm a little less flexible, although not entirely rigid. I enjoy big campaigns and while I'll slog through rows of petty one-shots with nothing in common but the PCs, I try to avoid that (ironically, the most regular group I GM in plays just like that).

So, I guess you are a minority, but folks like you are definitely out there.
And, what's most important, you're not bad roleplayers. I'd play with a group of five people who know exactly what they want from the system and the game world, and just that, rather than with the same number of open-minded experimenters, who get bored with the game after six months and move on to new horizons, so long as the former people can agree on their style.

CU,
Halaster

arguskos
2009-02-04, 03:49 AM
Truth be told, I'm like you Kiero (never thought I'd say that, I typically don't agree with your opinions, respect them yes, agree with them no). For example, I really, really, REALLY love playing the "I collect everything" wizard and/or the "Look what I made" inventor wizard. They aren't even GOOD archetypes in most games, I just love them. If I can't be the master of occult lore and/or the mad scientist, then I run like the plague from a game system.

But, yeah, we're in the minority on this one. :smallfrown:

Learnedguy
2009-02-04, 03:52 AM
In a world filled with pointy ears and pointy teeth, I'm the guy with the short life span.

I am human.

Always.

Tempest Fennac
2009-02-04, 03:58 AM
I have a strong preference for half animal characters (as the fact that Vulpines (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95436) are my ideal race suggests). Halflings are the only humanoid race which I really like, and I prefer spellcasters to other classes (especially if they are good healers).

Malacode
2009-02-04, 04:34 AM
Wow... I had no idea people could be so rigid about a game. Not to be insulting or anything. I just don't understand your feelings. For me, any game, any character. As long as I fill a role in the party (Comic relief counts), and I'm playing with friends, I'm happy to be in a game. I prefer Mages in most games, and I'll go for them first in most systems, but really I don't particularly care.

bosssmiley
2009-02-04, 04:39 AM
"Needs more dwarves, more swashbuckling, and more gonzo. No exceptions."

(I am a creature of simple pleasures :smallbiggrin: )

Drascin
2009-02-04, 04:45 AM
Oh, I have preferences, but most of them are not really rigid. I'll accomodate to a lot of stuff, and have fun. I have played very varied character types, from genteel warriors to support characters to psychotic druids.

I mean, of course, there are some things I just plain don't like (like SERIOUS attempts at Grimdark. When it's tongue-in-cheek, ala W40K, it's bearable, but games that base themselves in the fact that there's no hope and everybody sucks, and actually take the notion seriously, really turn me off), but they are far less prevalent or common than the stuff I do like.

arguskos
2009-02-04, 04:48 AM
Wow... I had no idea people could be so rigid about a game. Not to be insulting or anything. I just don't understand your feelings. For me, any game, any character. As long as I fill a role in the party (Comic relief counts), and I'm playing with friends, I'm happy to be in a game. I prefer Mages in most games, and I'll go for them first in most systems, but really I don't particularly care.
It's not that I'm particularly rigid, but that I simply enjoy somethings far more than others. For example, I've played every single class and most races in D&D 3.5, and I found that I have preferences for what I like. I tried stuff, and now I just do my favorites or the ideas I like the most.

I mean, if I am somehow prevented from playing what I wish and I am made to play the game anyways... then fine, I'll figure something out, but I won't be happy about it. I play games to have fun, and for me, part of that is playing an archetype I like.

Tempest Fennac
2009-02-04, 04:57 AM
My racial preferences are basically because I don't like being a human in real life. I also play as warriors and skill monkeys quite a bit.

Tokiko Mima
2009-02-04, 05:09 AM
I like effective characters, of any race, class, creed, etc. It must synergize and it must be effective at what it does, at minimum. That doesn't necessarily mean the most powerful, unless power was what was needed.

Once that's established, the sky's the limit. I just don't like for character I play to fail unless it's dramatic or due to pure situational challenge.

The characters I tend to hate are outliers, or character classes/races deliberately designed to be ineffective, like 3.5 Monks/Soulknives, or Samurai. It sucks the joy out of the game when I'm absolutely unhelpful and helpless.

Tempest Fennac
2009-02-04, 05:28 AM
Which rces do you see as deliberately ineffective, Tokiko? Also, do you think Samarais and Soulknives being rubbish was intentional?

Kiero
2009-02-04, 05:36 AM
Wow... I had no idea people could be so rigid about a game. Not to be insulting or anything. I just don't understand your feelings. For me, any game, any character. As long as I fill a role in the party (Comic relief counts), and I'm playing with friends, I'm happy to be in a game. I prefer Mages in most games, and I'll go for them first in most systems, but really I don't particularly care.

Well even moreso when I'm GMing, why would I want to run something I don't enjoy? That's a recipe for frustration and resentment.

I've played a range of characters in my 15-ish years of gaming, and I know that I don't enjoy certain types. I've run a range of campaigns and similarly I know there are things I like and things I don't.

Incidentally the SWSE game has transitioned to FATE 3.0, and I'm already enjoying it a lot more. The change even made some of the characters more interesting, as their players had to think about them beyond what they could do.

leperkhaun
2009-02-04, 05:41 AM
i have almost no preferences. Because of that (and im probably the most experianced player) i tend to play whatever spot the group needs most.

We are very flexible with characters but we do have some baselines.

1) High powered games, high powered characters allowed
2) not high powered games, high powered characters not allowed
3) Avoid straight group combatibility conflists if possible (someone playing a paladin and someone else playing a cleric of thier most hated evil god enemy)
4) the spirit of the rules means more than the wording
5) What the DM rules is the rule, live with it.

Inside those baselines its pretty much do what you want.

Tokiko Mima
2009-02-04, 06:15 AM
Which rces do you see as deliberately ineffective, Tokiko? Also, do you think Samarais and Soulknives being rubbish was intentional?

In 3.5 right? Most Monster races, because of the way LA works. A particularly glaring example is Ogre Magi. Half elves and half orcs as well are all generally mechanically bad except for highly specific uses. Some races are only bad if you don't use them with a particular class they synergize well with.

I'm sure the person who developed Samurai's and soulknives didn't mean for them to be as bad as they are, but that doesn't stop them from being junk. Anything you would want to do with a samurai or soulknife could be done more effectively with another class. There are exceptions, but in general the moment I see Soulknife, Samurai or Monk in a character build, that's a red flag for a character I would not play because it's taking up levels and being ineffective.

That is not to say I don't think other people should be allowed play them. Everyone has a right to play what they like, be that Batman or Truenamer. Just don't make me play one, because I know how badly they stink at doing anything useful and I hate feeling useless.

potatocubed
2009-02-04, 06:19 AM
My game preferences are virtually nonexistent. As a rule of thumb I'm less inclined to play games that occupy the far ends of the 'rules-light vs. rules-heavy' spectrum but anything in the middle is fair game.

Wushu, for example, doesn't interest me at all, although if a game happened to occur in my vicinity I might give it a shot in the interests of fairness (since I've never actually played it).

Conversely I did play the HERO system once. Never again.

Morty
2009-02-04, 06:25 AM
I do have some preferences. I'd rather play a non-heroic game rather than a heroic one, and I like to play spellcasters in fantasy games and other types of thinkers in other games. But ultimately, I'll play everything I see as fun. My strongest prejudices are cinematic gameplay -a game focused on such style won't earn my sympathy- and black-and-white moralty.

ericgrau
2009-02-04, 06:58 AM
I'm usually open to playing just about anything, but for DMing I think I'd want a system I'm really familiar with, and I'd only get really familiar with my favorite.

Tempest Fennac
2009-02-04, 07:23 AM
That is a good point about mnster races, Tokiko. I just tend to nerf them down to LA 0 if people want to use them in my games, or if I want to use one. (Eg: my Lizardfolk have +2 Con, -2 Int, +2 Natural Armour, +2 to all Balance, Swim and Jump checks and they can hold their beath for 4 times as long as other races).

Talya
2009-02-04, 10:38 AM
Hmm. There are certain things I like and don't like, but they generally revolve around fluff rather than crunch.

I don't like alternate timelines for fluff that I like, for example. As much as I adore the SWSE game, someone I know invited me into an alternate timeline game where the rebellion lost and the empire continued to rule the galaxy. I just was not interested.

On the other hand, I will NEVER play 4e Forgotten Realms because I loved the setting prior to their massive changes. I loved the multitude of plot hooks, the thousands of detailed locations and iconic characters and places and deities. In fact, 4e crunch requires such massive changes to any existing 3.x D&D campaign fluff that I won't play it at all in any setting I'm familiar with. I'm not going to try 4e until the Eberron sourcebook is out, I think...I've never tried eberron and want to, but have no attachments to the existing 3.5 Eberron because I've never played it.

I think part of why I'm rather accepting of various types of crunch is that I appreciate different aspects of them. My first RPG experience was with using a Palladium based system, and I thought it was great fun, because I'd never played anything else. Palladium is AWFUL.

West End Games Star Wars d6 was my next experience, and I loved it. Still like it, but it lacks some detail and finesse. I've also got mixed feelings on the difference between class/level based systems and more free-development systems. They both have their advantages. My three favorite games (d20 3.5, Exalted 2e, and SW Saga) are all so vastly different there's no real factor in common I can point at to say "I need this."

Darth Stabber
2009-02-04, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Tayla:
"My three favorite games (d20 3.5, Exalted 2e, and SW Saga) are all so vastly different there's no real factor in common I can point at to say "I need this.""
Actually that is indicative of a very strong common factor of crunchiness.

Not that that is bad, as stated elsewhere in this forum, I am a man who loves him some crunch. But ironically i don't like optimization that much, I like seeing how crunch and fluff intertwine. I like making offbeat characters, but when played side by side with the tippy wizards, CoDzilla's, uberchargers, and such, I feel like wow I show up with a creative character that can fill and interesting niche, where as you have shown up with a super monstrosity that can do better @ what I niched to do, and still be good @ what you do.


My Preferences are fairly strong but not incredibly exclusionary. Infact I renamed some of them requirements.

Requirements
Crunchiness.
Combat system that encourages tactical thinking.
A certain lvl of complexity (4e does not pass muster, due to this requirement)

Preferred RPGS
L5R
OWoD
SWSE
The Riddle of Steel (very complex, very tactical, very crunchy, if you ever get the chance to play it, and you have the brain cells for lots of math and keeping track of a lot of info in your head, play it. Also make sure the gm does not allow magician characters they are completely unbalanced and the game designers like it that way.)
Ars Magica
D&D 3.5(either taken lightheartedly or Ravenloft, either way I love crunch and hate optimization)

Kalirren
2009-02-04, 03:59 PM
I really don't think you're alone, Kiero. I think you're probably about as inflexible as most people are, but that you are more keenly aware of your own inflexibility. From what I've seen of people, it's common for someone to says that they're "open-minded about roleplaying", yet upon questioning be completely unwilling to step outside the one or two systems they know; on the other hand, when I hear someone who says, "I have rather inflexible preferences," they have likely experienced enough different role-playing methods and gaming social contracts that they actually know what they demand from a game, and know what aspects they are willing to compromise on to achieve what they demand in a manner courteous to other players.

I have my own inflexibilities; system-wise, my most important demand is that I do not like to play under rules systems that don't model effectively people as people. For example, a system like D&D 3.5 cannot effectively deal with a person being both an optimized combatant and a leader of people without extensive modification. This is a problem for me. But if I can bargain the DM into an understanding over things like this, involving concessions in the form of separating combat advancement from social advancement and skill advancement, then it's less of a problem.

My greatest narrative inflexibility is that I don't like participating in games where the PCs are the heroes. And I do mean to put the emphasis on "the". I'm greatly disturbed by games where everything on stage revolves around the PCs and little attention is given to other people in the world around them. Heroes and villains alike are made from their actions, and the PCs aren't the only agents out there.

I don't like worlds that don't make sense. I don't like railroaded plots (more accurately: I don't like it when character are deprived of IC agency by means of OOC-based decisions). I don't like jerkwad players who don't understand the difference between OOC and IC. I don't like gamism when gamist concerns starts overriding more meaningful narrative or explorative concerns. I have a long list of inflexiblities. But I think I'm probably one of the more flexible roleplayers out there, in that I'm willing to work through and adapt (to) almost any system and almost any partition of narrative privilege to further the goals of having a meaningful and intellectually stimulating game.

Bonecrusher Doc
2009-02-04, 04:21 PM
I like gritty, and I hate epic. I like low level stuff, making do with insufficent weapons/ammo/resources, and characters that aren't that much superior to everyday people but they're taking the challenge anyway. I hate super-powerful characters with clean robes or shiny armor and ridiculously oversized swords and cities that replace modern technology with magic.
Give me a quest from a peasant in a dirty hovel over a princess in a magic tower any day.
I also can't seem to bring myself to play anything but good characters, almost annoyingly so.

Aron Times
2009-02-04, 05:27 PM
I favor gamist RPGs like 4E. I see 4E as a tactical wargame with a dash of roleplaying for favor, i.e. D&D is primarily a game wherein you roleplay your character. I don't see roleplaying as a high art that needs to be perfected; it is simply a means to an end, a way of flavoring the otherwise flavorless tactical wargame.

Anyway, my characters are usually human because of the floating +2 bonus. Humans may not be the best fighters or wizards, but they can be decent in either role. Also, since all of my characters have Linguist and Jack of All Trades, the bonus feat that humans get helps to mitigate my suboptimal choices.

Basically, I play characters that are optimized for the concept that I want.

J.Gellert
2009-02-05, 04:53 AM
It depends, mine can be very strong or lessened depending on the material.

I started out as purely Epic-Tolkien-style fan, but while I hated Eberron for its Robots, I have allowed myself to enjoy Mieville's novels which are a huge deviation from what I'm used to.

It mostly depends on how it's presented, I think.

ghost_warlock
2009-02-05, 05:30 AM
Generally, I'll play just about anything once, just to gauge interest if nothing else. In the process I have found a few things that I rank as 'never again!' :smallbiggrin:

Some preferences:

I refuse to play any sort of dwarf unless I'm also a lycanthrope of some sort, preferrably rat or badger. (Heh, badger. :smalltongue:)
Generally, I either play a human, a gnome, or some aberrant-race, such as elan or thri-kreen. Though I dislike dwarves, I tend to like other miner/digger races, such as kobolds or badger-folk. (Badger! :smallbiggrin:) In the last StarWars campaign I participated in, I was a gem dragon. :smallamused: I originally wanted to play a Sith-possessed house cat, but noooooooo...
I hate clerics, in pretty much any incarnation I've ever seen them. Ditto for most any other divine character. I might multiclass in for a couple spells or the odd feature, but I'll never use it as a base class for a build. I was okay with shadow priests on WoW, but I vastly preferred my warlocks. :smallwink:
I hate paladins in every edition of D&D except 4th (in which they're my 2nd-favorite class).
I hate 3e warlocks and won't play them, but I prefer the 4e warlock to any other 4e class.
Generally, I prefer psions/arcane spellcasters and will only play a martial character if it's a redux of an old character or if I come up with a new character idea I really fall in love with (such as the 4e version I came up with for my character from the Facebook application, "Might of Many").
As for systems, I love character creation for GURPS, but hate gameplay and will probably never play another GURPS campaign. I love/prefer 3.5 D&D and Alternity pretty much equally. I pretty much refuse to play 4e D&D unless I'm playing either a warlock or a paladin (although, I admit that I'd consider giving it a shot with my Might of Many-inspired character, a fighter).
I prefer game genres that are basically described as exploration, horror, survival, or epic-fantasy. I tend to dislike space-operas, political games, pirate games, or mysteries. I lack the capacity role-play oriental-culture games (e.g., L5R) so I tend to avoid them.

Tempest Fennac
2009-02-05, 06:30 AM
Where are the stats for Badgerfolk? Also, why do you hate Divine casters while only playing as Lycanthropic Dwarves?

ghost_warlock
2009-02-05, 06:57 AM
Where are the stats for Badgerfolk? Also, why do you hate Divine casters while only playing as Lycanthropic Dwarves?

The badger-folk I've played were actually a homebrew race for Alternity, called the bahmest. I've seen 2nd-edition stats for something similar (which was where I got the idea for the race), but it'd take some digging to find. Heh. :smallamused: Badger...digging. :smalltongue: For 3.5, I'd probably just go with a somewhat-modified anthropomorphic badger, a la Savage Species (basically balance out the stats more; if memory serves badgers have something of a large Str-penalty as-is).

I dislike divine casters because I don't like the 'divine conduit' fluff, for one. I've got this whole "serve no masters" thing going... Also, I don't like playing heal-bots and I don't think the selfish, self-buffing clericzilla-approach is at all appropriate for a character that's supposed to be pious and all that noise. Sure, not every cleric is either a heal-bot or a clericzilla, but I'm just not a fan of the servant-but-a-leader style of play. I prefer my characters to be independent and unfettered; answering to no-one, whether god or mortal, while eschewing underlings as well. :smallwink:

As for dwarves...I just don't really like the short/beared/gold-craving/boozer archetype. But I did enjoy playing a simple-minded wererat dwarf ages ago. He had fleas; and it was good. :smallbiggrin:

ArcadiaGM
2009-02-05, 07:11 AM
I'll play pretty much any character type, but I need the freedom to make my character quirky or unique in some way. I'll always choose a character with weaknesses or flaws. I don't play PnP RPGs to have the experience of succeeding all the time (that's what videogames are for); failures and setbacks are dramatic opportunities. I like that.

As a GM, I prefer games with realistic motivations where everyone, including the "bad guys", sees *themselves* as the heros of the story. No monolithic evil. Bad guys do bad things because they think they are necessary, not because they're psychopaths. I like games that are gritty in tone, with a mix of successes and failures (though my current game is running in more of an action-movie-hero mode, and the players are really digging it).

The only system I've run or played in years is GURPS, though a friend has run a session or two of Champions (superheroes using the Hero system). I much prefer these systems to any incarnation of D&D.

Tempest Fennac
2009-02-05, 08:48 AM
Thanks for explaining, GW. (I'll check SS later). Something else I forgot to mention is that I like high magic/fantasy settings with G-rated, light gameplay and an emphasis on RPing (I'm not comfortable with dark games, and there's a lot of stuff that I don't enjoy RPPing).