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

[Jorren]

Obviously if you are new to rpgs this wouldn’t apply. I’ve been playing rpgs for over 40 years now and now I am looking back to things I enjoyed back in the day that I wouldn’t touch with a 10ft pole nowadays. Been there, done that, and I have too many T-shirts as it is.

The massive dungeon crawl: No way. If I have to go through a dungeon nowadays it better be something like 10 rooms, tops.

Detailed tactical combat with grids, miniatures, etc.: If I want tactical combat, I'll go play a board/war/computer game. It’s not that I have anything against tactical combat in the confines of an rpg. It is that board games and computer games deliver that experience in a way that is superior, in my opinion. Computer games handle the mechanical details, and bugs notwithstanding, this helps improve the flow of the game. In my experience, board games have tighter rules with fewer edge cases and exceptions, once again reducing (although not removing) the need to refer back to the rules.

The Endless Campaign: Yeah, no. Wrap it up at some point. I am fine with a series of short campaigns with the same characters, where you can technically play the same characters forever.

Zero to Hero, chump to god, etc.: It was ok for the first 40 or 50 times. Nowadays I am fine with chump to slightly more competent chump or just starting out as a demi-god.

Incompetent starting characters/High whiff factor for starting characters: Why are we wasting our time taking 5-6 swings at a rat? The humor factor is good for I don’t know, 2-3 minutes tops. In general, character incompetence as a vehicle for humor wears thin fast for me; it’s like a slightly funny joke that goes on for four hours. Critical fumbles fall into that same category; funny for the first 4 or 5 times, after which they just get tedious.

Non-unified mechanics, multiple subsystems, and tactical mini-games: Multiple subsystems and mini-games need a real good reason for me to consider them over a unified mechanic/task system. Look at 3.5 D&D’s undead turning chart; what a mess.

Generic/kitchen sink fantasy: Really, again? I know your elves are cannibals and your dwarves have French accents instead of Scottish but can you put a little effort into a setting? I am constantly baffled by players who are put off by the slightest bit of an exotic or unusual setting. At this point give me anything except the vaguely Tolkienesque setup. Exploring a setting shouldn’t be homework or history class, but come on. In my opinion most fantasy settings would be improved by substituting a variant human culture instead of a separate race.

Highly detailed character generation + high lethality: I am fine with detailed chargen and I am fine with high lethality games, but these two things should never, ever go together. I stopped playing Rolemaster for a reason, and it wasn’t all the charts (the charts were actually kind of cool).

Playing in a canonical universe during the main story: What, you mean you don’t want to shuttle food supplies to the Rebel Base so Luke and Han have enough supplies for the attack on the Empire facility? What about being bodyguards to Midnight and Cyric so they can become gods? Not interesting either? I know, you can run errands for Legolas and Aragorn during the War of the Ring. That’s gotta sound fun, right?

I am curious to what other people used to like in RPGs but dont' anymore.

[Anonymouswizard]

Point but character creation.

I mean, at least in theory I still like it, but not in the 'you have 200 points, go purchase your things with no direction' way. It just takes too long and I don't have time for it anymore. Although I still don't like classes systems in the D&D style I'd much rather be told 'you have X stat points and Y skill points, go and spend them', maybe with the option to shift the numbers with age categories or the like so I can go 'my character is 46, how many stat and skill points do I have'. Been getting into the Year Zero Engine games for that reason.

Tactical combat gets a vote from me as well. If I care about my position beyond what room I'm currently in I might as well just break out the board games.

I'm not going to vote for dungeon crawls because I never cared for them. If I'm moving through a spaceship it's to complete an objective, not see what's there. Most of the time.

[Cluedrew]

Oh yeah I can think of a few, and most of them are tactical combat. (Although very explicitly in role-playing games, its a matter of two things that just don't mix for me.) Which also has a bunch of effects about where I want to be spending time in character creation. Zero-to-hero and really long running campaigns are also something I've... not that I like them less but I think I know better than count on a group being able to play together that long.

There are a couple other things that although I don't dislike them they have been replaced fore me. For instance GM driven adventure - module like structures - is not my go-to campaign format anymore (its why I haven't posted in What's Your Favorite Campaign Premise You've Never Gotten To Play). Now I prefer dynamic player-driven campaigns were the campaign premise is decided after we have the characters.

[Imbalance]

Playing with jaded grognards. Yeah, I've been through all of these same tropes scads of times spanning multiple decades, just with a controller in hand, and now that I'm enjoying tabletop instead I've already run into a few folks who want to veto so many things that they're tired of. It was cool early on with my buds that had a lot of years of pencil & paper under their belts showing me the ropes, and I still like playing with those guys when I can, but other groups, especially online, always have that one curmudgeon who never moved on from whatever edition they started with and never passes up an opportunity to tell you how much better it was than the current version. Every time I hear, "ugh, Forgotten Realms again?" I get the impression that I'm not going to be allowed to enjoy the campaign, either. It's so much more fun playing with new people who engage with a sense of wonder at the possibilities before them, even if a lot of the ideas are old hat.

[Tanarii]

Battlemats.

Although having tried several systems that use zones (a large Mutan Year Zero / Forbidden Lands) I don't find it much of an improvement.

There really doesn't seem to be a great way to balance the distraction that a displayed map causes with the confusion the lack of one causes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

More an "I used to think I liked", but

Detailed, highly-granular rule sets with tons of options and a high degree of mechanical emphasis on fidelity of resolution. That goes for things like bell-shaped probability curves, tightly-balanced math, 3e-D&D style specified DCs for everything, tons of class options, etc. Especially those that wanted NPCs built using the same pieces as PCs[1].

And then I started DM'ing a lot, and realized that most of the time, what those highly granular rule sets did was bog things down. The increased overhead on the parts I didn't need help with (plus the framework getting in the way of improv and on-the-fly adjustment) totally swamped any extra utility on the parts that I struggled with. I discovered that speed of resolution was way more important to me, personally, than fidelity of resolution or depth of tactical[2] play

This became even more true as I realized that challenge, per se, is something I just don't care about. A game where the PCs are expected to win every fight, and the interesting questions are less "will they survive/win" and more "what will they choose to do, and how will the world react to that" is more my style. Who do they ally with, what organizations do they fight against, which ones do they champion, what parts of the world do they reshape, how do they react to certain NPCs, which ones do they hate, which ones do they (contrary to all sanity) try to adopt[4]

[1] I don't have a problem with them playing by the same rules[3] (ie action economy, generally, spell components, attack rolls, etc), but building them using PC-facing classes/levels/feats/etc is just not something that's useful for my personal style.
[2] whether that's combat tactical or not. I want people to take lots of little actions, not agonize about taking the one perfect action that ends the challenge. 5D chess annoys me. It's also draining as a DM. Draining of both motivation and energy.
[3] well, generally. I don't mind 5e-style legendary/mythic actions/resistances, and other such "I can do this special thing" cinematic measures. They're gamist, but I don't really care about that.
[4] my players tend to have the perverse reaction of "oh, cute. Can I adopt it?" whenever things that are gnarly come along. The froghemoth was the first such--their first reaction was "I want that as a mount." Two games so far have the party having adopted ~10-15 kids that they've rescued from various bad situations. And they are deadly serious about those kids--threatening to touch them is one of the best ways to get them to come whoop your hind end.

[Telok]

Over all, I think I've mostly refined and better defined what I like and don't like. The only things I can think of that I once like and no longer feel like putting up with are piles of dice, custom dice, and simplicity for the sake of simplicity.

Piles of dice are fun to roll, but there always seems to be the (at least) one player that just can't deal with totaling, choosing, counting, whatever you're doing with them. Then it gets worse with different types in the pile because they never seem to have the right dice or enough dice. One or two dice types, ten or twelve total dice. That's my preference these days.

Custom dice are not, in and of themselves, bad. But they often obfuscate the actual math going on, disguise the probability spread of the results. I've yet to see (I could be wrong) a game built for/with custom dice that didn'y somehow screw up it's math or the roll results. <snipped rant>

Simplicity for the sake of simplicity is like civic planning based on political ideology. There are places in the world you can play football/soccer in the middle of a beautiful six lane highway because there's nobody using it. Use only one die? Only roll once? Only the players roll? Only one way to modify the rolls? All OK, right up until you've simplified it so much that people start abusing the corners you've cut, or characters can't fulfill their narrative space (strong warrior, skilled archer, smart wizard, etc.) because their abilities or differences got simplified away.

[Yora]

Giving all characters new toys at every level seemed like a good idea at the time.

How are you supposed to give all players opportunities to try out each of their toys more than once or twice?

[Morty]

Symmetry between PCs and NPCs. I used to think it's important that they use the same rules, as otherwise it's not realistic. I've come to realize that trying to keep such symmetry is often more trouble than it's worth. Obviously it's going to depend on the system, but PCs and NPCs are always going to serve different purposes in the game and what works for one won't work for the other. Not to mention that it's not actually very realistic for everyone to learn and use the same abilities in the same way.

[Vahnavoi]

Unified core math, esp. with dice. Yes, there's utility in having basically a single rule or set of rules for covering any type of action... as a fallback for those cases where you couldn't think of a more interesting way to gamify that type of action and because it's impossible to make individual rules for all types of actions. But as the core of a game, that just makes RPGs into glorified Yathzee or, worse, Snakes & Ladders. Making every damn thing into the same sort of simple math puzzle and making rolling dice the chief thing you actually do as a player is very limited design schema for games.

Freeform play-by-post. After ten years of continuous play, I'm exhausted by that format. I actually gained newfound appreciation for traditional GM-driven tabletop play through observing and experiencing flaws of GM-less games. I also developed the opinion that tabletop players who think the path to Game Nirvana is reducing or eliminating GM power and exact rules have not actually played any freeform.

[Pauly]

Highly detailed mechanics with tons of options, as noted above it bogs play down.
More importantly for me though is that unintended consequences/synergies leave you with less realistic results than simplified rules. Also the highly complex systems take away from the cinematic feel of the game. I grab the chandelier and swing across the room should be an exciting event, not 15 different die rolls on 8 different tables.

As a player: Knowing everything about the rules, setting and potential enemies as possible. Reading the monster manual from cover to cover, knowing all the mechanics for all the actors on the table, building a character with optimization for the next 10 levels in mind at character creation. Now it’s much more fun have a sense of discovery and excitement about new things. If it means taking the suboptimal approach most of the time I’m much more cool with that than grinding for the optimal outcome against things my character has never encountered before. It does mean playing a more forgiving system though as some games out there are built for the Hardcore Henrys

[Warder]

For me I have the opposite experience to many here - I used to enjoy rules-light systems with simple mechanics, but I really don't anymore. That the actual gameplay flow is simple is great, but part of what I enjoy is making many choices for character creation and progression. Stats, feats, skills, traits, flaws, I want as much as I can get. You'd think that it may be because I could be a min-maxer, but it's actually the other way around; with a large pool of options and many choices to make, I feel far more free to make sub-optimal choices, and create a character that's strictly "my own". That really helps me roleplay the character too, as I really enjoy thinking about how mechanical choices might translate into shaping someone's personality.

Edit: This is also why I think the Mystic is the most enjoyable class in 5e and why I see scrapping it as the point where I started falling out of love with the direction of that edition.

[False God]

Paperwork. If my character sheet is over 4 pages (2 front and back) I find that too much time gets devoted to flipping through pages, trying to find the right spell or ability, the right feat description and so on.

Complex, verbose, and "vancian" magic systems. Really stems from the problem above, but it's just so time consuming to sort out the good spells from the fun spells from the useful spells. I much prefer more utilitarian magic that scales with the caster in some method and utilizes a pool-based resource or is restricted/expanded by a dice pool. "Slots" and daily memorization and even spellbooks all just translate into "paperwork".

Number crunching, this is more of a table or Dm or party complaint but I deal all day with money and numbers. I really am not interested in tallying every last copper or detailing every last bolt on the starship.

Sum it up: I'm here to have fun and have a good time, not push pencils.

[Tanarii]

For me I have the opposite experience to many here - I used to enjoy rules-light systems with simple mechanics, but I really don't anymore. That the actual gameplay flow is simple is great, but part of what I enjoy is making many choices for character creation and progression. Stats, feats, skills, traits, flaws, I want as much as I can get. You'd think that it may be because I could be a min-maxer, but it's actually the other way around; with a large pool of options and many choices to make, I feel far more free to make sub-optimal choices, and create a character that's strictly "my own". That really helps me roleplay the character too, as I really enjoy thinking about how mechanical choices might translate into shaping someone's personality.

Did you ever enjoy rules complexity first?

IMX many if not most players go through the phases of discovering the hobby, getting into rules interactions and complex character building, then moving back away from that. There are some who start with roleplaying elitism (not to say that was you) and distancing rules out the gate, but other than that it's by far the most common to get into rules complexity, followed by dialing it back.

[Hytheter]

Battlemats.

Although having tried several systems that use zones (a large Mutan Year Zero / Forbidden Lands) I don't find it much of an improvement.

There really doesn't seem to be a great way to balance the distraction that a displayed map causes with the confusion the lack of one causes.

Have you tried using a zone system with a visual aid? I'm assuming your issue with battlemats is the grid or precise positioning and tedious setup that usually comes with them, but it could be as simple as slapping down a crude drawing of the area with the zones marked so that relative position is understandable without getting tedious about it.

[Tanarii]

Have you tried using a zone system with a visual aid? I'm assuming your issue with battlemats is the grid or precise positioning and tedious setup that usually comes with them, but it could be as simple as slapping down a crude drawing of the area with the zones marked so that relative position is understandable without getting tedious about it.

Yup, that's one issue. The other is how a concrete visual of physical figurines and a grid pull folks out of first person thinking about their character's actions, and can constrain decision making. Although many games already have that by having a limited list of effective combat activities anyway.

I landed on primarily using dry erase white boards (one small one medium sized) to draw quick diagrams to clarify anything that needed to be clarified. I still used battlemats for large set piece battles with lots of complexity.

[Saintheart]

Detailed tactical combat with grids, miniatures, etc.: If I want tactical combat, I'll go play a board/war/computer game. It’s not that I have anything against tactical combat in the confines of an rpg. It is that board games and computer games deliver that experience in a way that is superior, in my opinion. Computer games handle the mechanical details, and bugs notwithstanding, this helps improve the flow of the game. In my experience, board games have tighter rules with fewer edge cases and exceptions, once again reducing (although not removing) the need to refer back to the rules.

On one hand I think this situation is because board/war/computer games, simply put, have it easier in this domain. The board game is by definition set up to have a fixed set of choices and options within a fixed "matrix" of choices. There are set win conditions and set loss conditions, and typically a finite number of ways the game can play out. Staggering complexity and replayability is available with a fairly simple set of rules, so long as there are only a given number of ways a game can finish and the rules are heavily based on there being a clear Yes/No answer to a given situation in the game. Chess is the most obvious one (PvP, 9 character classes, tactical combat :) ) but I'd actually look at Go as one of the more significant examples of this. In common is the aspect of fixed starting positions, large expansion of options and choices as the game goes on, and then - typically - condensation of options down to few, leading to defeat or victory (or stalemate). And notice how Chess doesn't actually allow you to carry out any options simultaneously. Even if your assault is set up with Deep Blue precision, you can only make one choice at a time, one piece at a time. My suspicion is that board games only get larger and more tricky the more options players have which can be carried out in an uninterrupted sequence ... or worse still can be carried out simultaneously.

Videogames are a bit different because whether consciously or not the idea of the video game is to deliver a certain experience to the player. They are much more targeted at delivering an adrenaline rush and/or behavioural response. By and large when it comes to conversions of D&D style games into videogame forms, they succeed beautifully because (a) as you say, they get the mechanics out of the way and (b) they also don't allow you the full range of actions that a RPG does. Once again, they limit your options and limit what you can do simultaneously. And even then the mechanics can be ab/used to create characters with powers or abilities way outside what the makers likely intended. Once again, though, the intent is slightly different because the video game is all about getting a hormonal rush out of you. It's all about penetrating past your thinking brain and hacking the flight or fight response by any means they can. Which means you get the mechanics out of the way and deliver an experience. Sure, they'll give you some numbers showing how much damage you're doing from time to time, but the only reason they do it is to provide and hack your biofeedback loop, keep you playing the game because you can see the damage your Sword of Wobblytimes +1 is doing. They'll go for your sense of immersion by getting past your thinking brain and going straight for the adrenaline and the dopamine hits.

RPGs don't fit either of these. They seek that their players are immersed in a fictional reality, but they can't really hit the adrenaline button, and they can't quite hack the boardgame's mechanic of immersion because they have to preserve the illusion of free will. But they also need the objective method of resolving physical conflict because people ultimately won't accept the program without it. It's a damnably hard job to induce a flow state in a RPG if for no other reason than that the moment the situation gets too complex to handle past a dice roll or two without setting off complaints of unfairness, your effortful, 'thinking slow' brain becomes engaged and the magic has to be restarted.

That being said: most RPGs are ****-poor at teaching DMs how to run them, or deliver the immersive experience they claim playing the RPG will deliver. If the industry does not figure out how to overcome this issue, then D&D's seeming present popularity aside, it is headed back for the obscure hobby section of the store.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On one hand I think this situation is because board/war/computer games, simply put, have it easier in this domain. The board game is by definition set up to have a fixed set of choices and options within a fixed "matrix" of choices. There are set win conditions and set loss conditions, and typically a finite number of ways the game can play out. Staggering complexity and replayability is available with a fairly simple set of rules, so long as there are only a given number of ways a game can finish and the rules are heavily based on there being a clear Yes/No answer to a given situation in the game. Chess is the most obvious one (PvP, 9 character classes, tactical combat :) ) but I'd actually look at Go as one of the more significant examples of this. In common is the aspect of fixed starting positions, large expansion of options and choices as the game goes on, and then - typically - condensation of options down to few, leading to defeat or victory (or stalemate). And notice how Chess doesn't actually allow you to carry out any options simultaneously. Even if your assault is set up with Deep Blue precision, you can only make one choice at a time, one piece at a time. My suspicion is that board games only get larger and more tricky the more options players have which can be carried out in an uninterrupted sequence ... or worse still can be carried out simultaneously.

Videogames are a bit different because whether consciously or not the idea of the video game is to deliver a certain experience to the player. They are much more targeted at delivering an adrenaline rush and/or behavioural response. By and large when it comes to conversions of D&D style games into videogame forms, they succeed beautifully because (a) as you say, they get the mechanics out of the way and (b) they also don't allow you the full range of actions that a RPG does. Once again, they limit your options and limit what you can do simultaneously. And even then the mechanics can be ab/used to create characters with powers or abilities way outside what the makers likely intended. Once again, though, the intent is slightly different because the video game is all about getting a hormonal rush out of you. It's all about penetrating past your thinking brain and hacking the flight or fight response by any means they can. Which means you get the mechanics out of the way and deliver an experience. Sure, they'll give you some numbers showing how much damage you're doing from time to time, but the only reason they do it is to provide and hack your biofeedback loop, keep you playing the game because you can see the damage your Sword of Wobblytimes +1 is doing. They'll go for your sense of immersion by getting past your thinking brain and going straight for the adrenaline and the dopamine hits.

RPGs don't fit either of these. They seek that their players are immersed in a fictional reality, but they can't really hit the adrenaline button, and they can't quite hack the boardgame's mechanic of immersion because they have to preserve the illusion of free will. But they also need the objective method of resolving physical conflict because people ultimately won't accept the program without it. It's a damnably hard job to induce a flow state in a RPG if for no other reason than that the moment the situation gets too complex to handle past a dice roll or two without setting off complaints of unfairness, your effortful, 'thinking slow' brain becomes engaged and the magic has to be restarted.

That being said: most RPGs are ****-poor at teaching DMs how to run them, or deliver the immersive experience they claim playing the RPG will deliver. If the industry does not figure out how to overcome this issue, then D&D's seeming present popularity aside, it is headed back for the obscure hobby section of the store.

As for me, what I want out of a TTRPG is something that neither board games nor video games can provide, because they lack the human element. The open-ended human element. I seek exploration--to go beyond what I know. To go beyond the limits of the system. I need the freedom to build and explore worlds. The possibility for things to go "sproing" and take a sharp left turn that no one expected. Mechanics? Flow states? Tactics? Challenge? Even immersion (which I find board games to be horrible at, personally)? Secondary or meaningless. All that matters is the endless vistas.

I don't want rule systems that think of themselves as rule systems. I want UI layers, conscious that their only job is to translate between the fiction of a world that could be real and a bunch of players sitting around a table/around computers. Not opinionated "rules" that see themselves as governing or teaching[1] or guiding. The rules are the servants, not the masters, and I fear that some of the more "well designed" ones forget that. I want the rule system to recede into the background--ideally I'd not have to think about the mechanical layer at all. It would serve its subordinate purpose transparently, helping us resolve uncertainty in a way that, if not "realistic", is acceptable to everyone and provides the atmosphere we seek.

My favorite times as a DM and worldbuilder are when the players find connections and pieces of the world that I'd not seen, even though they've been playing in it for a 100 hours, max, and I've lived in it for years. Especially when those make things "click" and open new areas of the world to my understanding. When they push me to flesh out places I'd only had a surface gloss on, and in doing so, find deepness and richness that wasn't there before. Characters coming alive and claiming their places in the world, whether I like it or not. When the world starts talking back and insisting that it have its way. When I learn things about people and about myself that I'd not considered. All of these take human interaction in a space with structure but no boundaries. Where there's a framework of themes, but no invisible walls set by the programmers.

[1] When I hear about DMs or systems that try to "teach" their players "life lessons" or even "how to play tactically", I cringe a bit. I was a teacher for many years. That's not how it works. You can give tutorial levels, but doing so in TTRPGs is fraught with peril. And doing it in the context of a real game, outside a consciously-declared "here's how you play" quickstart tutorial turns everyone off. DMs, rule designers, build tools. Don't try to teach lessons.

[Jorren]

On one hand I think this situation is because board/war/computer games, simply put, have it easier in this domain. The board game is by definition set up to have a fixed set of choices and options within a fixed "matrix" of choices. There are set win conditions and set loss conditions, and typically a finite number of ways the game can play out. Staggering complexity and replayability is available with a fairly simple set of rules, so long as there are only a given number of ways a game can finish and the rules are heavily based on there being a clear Yes/No answer to a given situation in the game. Chess is the most obvious one (PvP, 9 character classes, tactical combat :) ) but I'd actually look at Go as one of the more significant examples of this. In common is the aspect of fixed starting positions, large expansion of options and choices as the game goes on, and then - typically - condensation of options down to few, leading to defeat or victory (or stalemate). And notice how Chess doesn't actually allow you to carry out any options simultaneously. Even if your assault is set up with Deep Blue precision, you can only make one choice at a time, one piece at a time. My suspicion is that board games only get larger and more tricky the more options players have which can be carried out in an uninterrupted sequence ... or worse still can be carried out simultaneously.

This part is why I prefer to focus on the tactical options presented in these tighter contexts. With an open-ended situation that an RPG provides, I end up thinking 'how can I poison the orc chieftain's dinner' as opposed to 'how can I outmanuever or outfight the orc chieftain in battle'. Because fighting him in battle comes across as tedious in the sense that it delays the more interesting aspects of an open-ended experience for me. With boardgames there is also the PVP aspect of pitting yourself against another person's skills, something that doens't quite gel for me when I am dealing with a referee/GM.

Videogames are a bit different because whether consciously or not the idea of the video game is to deliver a certain experience to the player. They are much more targeted at delivering an adrenaline rush and/or behavioural response. By and large when it comes to conversions of D&D style games into videogame forms, they succeed beautifully because (a) as you say, they get the mechanics out of the way and (b) they also don't allow you the full range of actions that a RPG does. Once again, they limit your options and limit what you can do simultaneously. And even then the mechanics can be ab/used to create characters with powers or abilities way outside what the makers likely intended. Once again, though, the intent is slightly different because the video game is all about getting a hormonal rush out of you. It's all about penetrating past your thinking brain and hacking the flight or fight response by any means they can. Which means you get the mechanics out of the way and deliver an experience. Sure, they'll give you some numbers showing how much damage you're doing from time to time, but the only reason they do it is to provide and hack your biofeedback loop, keep you playing the game because you can see the damage your Sword of Wobblytimes +1 is doing. They'll go for your sense of immersion by getting past your thinking brain and going straight for the adrenaline and the dopamine hits.

Not all videogames are adrenaline fueled action fests. Some are turn based affairs with mundane graphics, yet don't require you to fumble with dice, battle mats, dropping things, set up time, forgetting rules, etc. Many of them are quite transparent in the mechanical sense. The lack of the face to face human element is the main downside.

RPGs don't fit either of these. They seek that their players are immersed in a fictional reality, but they can't really hit the adrenaline button, and they can't quite hack the boardgame's mechanic of immersion because they have to preserve the illusion of free will. But they also need the objective method of resolving physical conflict because people ultimately won't accept the program without it. It's a damnably hard job to induce a flow state in a RPG if for no other reason than that the moment the situation gets too complex to handle past a dice roll or two without setting off complaints of unfairness, your effortful, 'thinking slow' brain becomes engaged and the magic has to be restarted.

With RPGs nowadays I prefer the flow state to be facilitated by quick resolution that comes from a single or short series of rolls. The tactical breakdown of many classic RPGs reminds me of those JRPG videogames that 'woosh' you off to a battle screen when combat starts. Talk about killing immersion.

That being said: most RPGs are ****-poor at teaching DMs how to run them, or deliver the immersive experience they claim playing the RPG will deliver. If the industry does not figure out how to overcome this issue, then D&D's seeming present popularity aside, it is headed back for the obscure hobby section of the store.

I think many of them might be better off if they stop promising to deliver an experience that they cannot even articulate properly.

[Mastikator]

I used to think realism was super important, but it's not. It was verisimilitude the whole time that I wanted, internal consistency. I don't mind that horses are too slow or too fast, as long as the game makes sense for how fast horses are. I don't mind if fire is an element, just as long as the game sticks to antique physics the whole way through.

[Saintheart]

Not all videogames are adrenaline fueled action fests. Some are turn based affairs with mundane graphics, yet don't require you to fumble with dice, battle mats, dropping things, set up time, forgetting rules, etc. Many of them are quite transparent in the mechanical sense. The lack of the face to face human element is the main downside.

And as time goes on, particularly now that COVID's given videoconferencing a shot in the arm (so to speak) that'll be less and less of an issue. I don't disagree with anything you say.

[Telok]

I want UI layers, conscious that their only job is...

Funny. When I program a UI its only partially to help the user make the right choices. A good chunk of effective UI programming is making it feel easy for the user to select the choices you want them to make, while invisibily removing the ability to make other choices. A great UI feels easy and natural to the users while not letting them do anything that isn't pre-approved. 4e was the closest I ever saw D&D get to that.

[Satinavian]

As for video game analogies, well :

There are people who play and like rail shooters.
There are people who play and like visual novels.
There are people who play and like grand strategy games.
There are people who play and like minecraft.

Tabletop RPGs can be the the equivalent of all of those. And for each approach you will find players who think that is the best and most enjoyable way.

[Anonymouswizard]

I used to think realism was super important, but it's not. It was verisimilitude the whole time that I wanted, internal consistency. I don't mind that horses are too slow or too fast, as long as the game makes sense for how fast horses are. I don't mind if fire is an element, just as long as the game sticks to antique physics the whole way through.

Ah yes, this. I can't remember when I finally let go of realism, but it's been better since I let it go and focused on consistency and feel.


Another thing that's far less important to me now: generic systems. I still likely the ones I own, but I like them for the ways they aren't generic (GURPS is a complex system that's great for technical science fiction stuff, Savage Worlds is a game of 1930s pulp, Fate is for if I want to emulate story pacing). But genericism itself isn't something I like anymore, give me a game that can run literally anything and I'll want to know where the flavour is.

[HeraldOfExius]

Experience points. If I'm playing a system that uses levels, I prefer to use some sort of milestone progression these days. Sure experience points provide that constant trickle of positive reinforcement that you're making "progress," but I feel like they have too many problems compared to their benefits. As a player, they're an extra number to track and an obviously out of character motivator. As a GM, they're an unpredictable constraint, since it can be difficult to know just how the players will interact with the world unless you railroad them.

Related to that, I wouldn't quite say that I dislike level-based systems, but they don't rate as highly for me as they used to. I still like to play them, but they aren't my preferred way to play. "Leveling up" tends to draw too much focus away from the better parts of gaming.

[Cluedrew]

For me I have the opposite experience to many here - I used to enjoy rules-light systems with simple mechanics, but I really don't anymore.

Another not quite "used to like but don't anymore" thing is when I started exploring rules-light systems and found some that went further than I want. Still, it seems the systems closest to what I want are a bit on the rules-light side. And I will always respect Roll for Shoes (whose entire rules set fits onto one side of an index card) for being its silly self.

[Vahnavoi]

That being said: most RPGs are ****-poor at teaching DMs how to run them, or deliver the immersive experience they claim playing the RPG will deliver. If the industry does not figure out how to overcome this issue, then D&D's seeming present popularity aside, it is headed back for the obscure hobby section of the store.

Locally, several indie designer acknowledged this problem and this birthed at least two entire new games specifically made for beginners and several supplements and an expanded new edition of an old one.

Not that I expect likes of Praedor or Astraterra to make a big splash in the international market so dominated by D&D, and a particularly dim take on D&D at that. Lamentations of the Flame Princess has been somewhat more successfull, but it's hard to say if it will continue reaching new players given the old boxed sets with tutorials have sold out and the new Referee book still hasn't come out.

[Spore]

Worlds that do not summarize their intent in a precise manner.

I enjoyed Keith Baker's approach with Eberron to roughly outline the plot points and world, but fill in even the largest gaps yourself (what happened in the Mournland, what is King Kaius planning, is the Silver Flame really evil in disguise?). I liked that. It encouraged the DMs of the time to think for themselves but still be able to use an established setting.

But nowadays I feel that in doubt, assistance should always be given from the writer's side. There will always be stuff the author did not think about or was only implied as an excercise for the reader to fill out one way or another. But the more media I consume, the more worlds I see, more often than not that liberty is just a thinly veiled excuse not the explain stuff, that cannot be explained or ends in a plot hole. You can change active parts of a world, that is not the issue. Not unless your group is a bunch of author evangelists who claim that when Caer Dineval's Speaker was a man named Jensin Brent in 1356, it must even be so in your game.

A world should follow a consistent logic, fractions, large events should have a defined outcome and goal, even if the details or reason for them happening can be shrouded in mystery. And before one has my head for shifting on Eberron: The Church of Silver Flame is a decent example for this being a positive thing. Their goal was to hunt lycanthropes, but their new purpose is to protect humanity from the impurities of monsters. This can mean they are incredibly racist towards non/meta-humans, this can mean their members are stalwart defenders, but any given outlined character connected to that faction should have an opinion towards that topic. You can't just half-write a character and then say: "heres archbishop Lazarus McKinsey. It is heavily implied he is sinister, but make up your mind on your own for that."

[jjordan]

Not unless your group is a bunch of author evangelists who claim that when Caer Dineval's Speaker was a man named Jensin Brent in 1356, it must even be so in your game.

Which is why I hold the opposing point of view. I prefer systems that are fairly vague about backgrounds so I have more room to maneuver with storytelling. And it's probably what drove me away from a lot (but not all) crunch. I really enjoyed having reference tables/scales which were internally consistent and can tell me roughly how much damage someone could be expected to take if a house fell on their head (to pick a silly example). I used those as guidelines. When players started treating them like inviolable gospel it sucked the fun out of them and made them a chore.

[Telwar]

Huh.

I realized when running Shadowrun 4e a few years ago that I didn't entirely disagree with the idea of a "lighter" ruleset. Don't get me wrong, I like having rules, since I don't have to remember how I ruled or spend that effort when I could be running the world.

Also, having played with folks who are not insane accounting masters makes me realize that if you are going to have lots of equipment to pore through, it really needs to be better organized.

If a ruleset has a lot of bells and whistles (like Shadowrun or FFG SW), it really needs some form of character builder...and really should have an official one and not require some nice people to make Chummer or Oggdude's. Even with Oggdude's, I had to build out my Gigoran* Hired Gun in Excel because the very nice person who built that character builder still hasn't gotten the supplement into his character builder.