Things in RPGs that you used to like but don’t anymore

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sadly enough, D&D as a system?

It's not that I dislike D&D. It's the gateway drug, if that makes sense--it got me into tabletop, and it's still the system that people default to when you wanna do some pen-and-paper. But I'm also aware that D&D has some weaknesses, like its simulationist ruleset, its emphasis on GM vs. Player, and how little the rulesets encourage storytelling.

If you're GMing, you need to be ready, at any time, to set DCs for anything the players do, adjudicate which check it uses, have statblocks/names/voices ready for any and all NPCs the players can interact with. You create the world, the lore, the adventure, because if you don't have a dungeon full of goblins, gnolls, and beholders, you just end up staring at each other for five hours. What's more, because it is largely the GM vs. the party, players often feel the need to fill traditional party rolls, and any opportunity for non-standard parties or interpersonal conflict gets largely stifled.

Compare that to a system like Apocalypse World or its derivatives Masks, Thirsty Sword Lesbians, and Fellowship. To start with, much of the world is player-generated. Each system primes you with player relations, past deeds, stuff like that, which is all fitting to the archetypes of the players. So right from square one, you're set up with plot hooks and threads to chase down and tase out or forget, as appropriate. Wow, the Brainer stole something from the Hardholder? What was it? Why'd they need it? What are they doing with it? Is it still around? And it's totally legit, as a GM, to turn to a player and say, "Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. But Barbecue, you're the hardholder, whatcha got? You know the troublemakers in New Manhattan, alright. What's the nasty on the people harassing your supply caravans?" Players are invested because it's not just your world; it's a shared world that everyone's contributing towards. And what's more, due to the greatly simplified ruleset, you're basically always set for whatever direction the players go towards! And what's more, interesting characters are not only possible, but encouraged!

Seriously, PBTA games are just a tutorial on how to run fun, interesting games, and I can't recommend them enough.

It's interesting how much of this is pure taste.

I've never seen D&D as simulationist (especially not 5e) nor as GM vs party (if you're doing it that way, you're explicitly going against core system assumptions). And the type of stories it encourages you to tell (which yes, contra @Tanarii, it does encourage creating stories) are the kinds of stories I find interesting. It encourages discovering the story of the characters as they explore a world. Where it "fails" is at providing authored-fiction-style stories with clean story beats, closely-plotted events, beginnings, climaxes, and ends. But I find that to be a feature, not a bug. If I want a clean narrative, I've got tons of fiction to read/watch. I want things that could spiral out of anyone's control at any minute. Where me, as DM, having to improv and react to the players' actions and them having to react to my actions is the story. I don't want players thinking "but the story demands...." or "this is better for the narrative...". I want them thinking like characters. Let me weave it (or not) into a coherent narrative--that's a chunk of my fun in trying to fit these disparate aspects into a retrospective "story"[1].

And for me, world building is much of the fun. Having people interact with the world in character stance, not in author stance. Where the world reacts and responds to what they do through their characters, not what they do acting as players. I've found that having a living world that reacts to the players and in which the players' actions (filtered through the characters) have lasting effects (including for other groups) provides all of the benefits...without the stance switching and heavy workload on anyone's part.

I find PbtA to be opinionated and constraining, because it has its model of what is "interesting" and "how to play TTRPGs right". And that model doesn't fit anything but a narrow slice of possibilities. None of which I'm personally interested in. So for me, PbtA is the model of how to do it wrong, how to create preachy, uninteresting, constraining games. But that's a matter of pure taste, not some objective statement.

[1] I don't plan in advance. But I do look at what's happened and look for pieces I can weave into future sessions so that in retrospect it appears like a linear story despite having been anything but that. Self-laying railroad tracks--you look backward and you see the tracks you've laid behind you. But you can go anywhere.