TheRPGSite

I am burned out on complex rules, and people trying to lambast me for enjoying all of the classic D&D tropes.

Posts trotting out tired old criticisms of D&D as if they're insightful new news that will reshape the gaming world.

Out of game: People who talk about avoiding combat like it's some kind of high-minded role playing ideal.
In game: "Gritty" games.

For me, 3.5 is probably the classic example. Played the hell out of it, occasionally think it might be interesting to try a variant again, and then I remember the stat blocks.

Quote from: Pat;1134715For me, 3.5 is probably the classic example. Played the hell out of it, occasionally think it might be interesting to try a variant again, and then I remember the stat blocks.

In a similar vein, tactical heavy games.  It isn't even fun to theory craft anymore.

I'm burnt on narrative mechanics in general, FFG Star Wars in particular.

Another cycle of a popular movie or TV license granted to a company that then tries to maximize their profits by splitting up the IP.

overly complicated games... I've never really liked them. It's one of the reasons I like the OSR.

New versions of games just for the sake of it. $$$$$$$$$

I'm sick of game designers essentially writing the same fantasy game over and over.

In congruent artwork or 'concepts' that do not work in the setting (pulls me write out of the game).

Elves... Pixies... Guh'nomes... or humanoid characters with horns.

1) The concept that TTRPGs are an Industry and not a hobby.

2) Game systems that emphasize character builds instead of tactics and strategy.

Not much that is recent enough to say I'm burned out.  There's a whole lot of things that I can't really say I ever enjoyed, for which my dislike has intensified over the years:  GM fudging, licensed IP, mechanics that are too cute by half, and a bunch of smaller things too numerous to list.

Most of the narrative concepts I'm not so much burned out on as markedly disinterested.  In the same way that you can't really say I'm "burned out" on the horror genre when really I've got nothing against it--just zero interest in using it.

I've definitely gone way past my limit of tolerance for RPGs made to be read instead of played.  Maybe that one.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1134726mechanics that are too cute by half, and a bunch of smaller things too numerous to list.

I've definitely gone way past my limit of tolerance for RPGs made to be read instead of played.

Totally agree with these two.

Nothing worse than having to read a 400 page rpg rule book from a designer who's a deeply frustrated writer on the inside. Anytime I see that type of guff, in a game or a short story, I just skip it entirely. That's why I read novels and play games.

Oh, where can I start?

Character builds instead of actually created characters. Builds look to optimize character creation to its ultimate end. And not actually represent an actual person the player has put time and care into creating and conceiving.

A build is just optimized, mechanics. Without any meaning behind them. And I think that the type of player who lusts after builds just completely misses the point and fun of roleplaying games. They get absorbed in mechanical advantage. And forget the rest.

GAH! Players like that frustrate me no end! And they are a misery for a GM to have to deal with.

I'm an old Champions GM. And this problem has been one since the game's outset. Players who completely miss the fucking point of actually playing a superhero RPG in the first place.

Want to make me a happy GM? Make a character. Not just a mass of mechanics on a character sheet. With nothing backing it up! I need to know why your character is a hero, and what motivated them to put on a costume in the first place. I need psychological hooks to playoff. I need substance to help me actually craft adventures that have actual meaning to you, the player, and your character. Give me story elements to work with!

If you have spent any time at all actually reading superhero comics. You should get the pathos of them and be able to encapsulate that within the character you create. This is not a big request. This is actually part of the stated premise of the game. So get off your ass and actually CREATE!

The character sheet, the game mechanics are just tools to help in telling your character's story. They represent a mere fraction of the entire experience. They are not the main point of the roleplaying experience. And treating them like they are derails the experience for everybody else. So just fucking stop it!

If I posted this on TBP, I would be accused of being intolerant of other people's playstyles and likely get a warning or a ban. But no. My frustration comes from people who waste my time and only provide a character sheet. With nothing backing it up. People who do not finish the job of actually making a fully realized character with the necessary components for a GM to actually make it work.

I am tired of not enough people lambasting Razor 007.  I blame it on people wasting their energy on the culture war instead of on their fellow nerds where it should be targeted.

Settings.

I never really understood them. Who the heck needs an entire planned out world to play a game in, when most of the time you're just in one location for weeks and weeks at a time (often months and months) anyway?

Im burned out on 5e. Im also a bit tired of all non-human parties.  Oh and people pretending games need social mechanics or theyre just wargames.

Quote from: Slambo;1134734Im burned out on 5e. Im also a bit tired of all non-human parties.  Oh and people pretending games need social mechanics or theyre just wargames.

I would kill for a good 5e game online. I've never actually played 5e. Though I own most of the books that matter for it.

The characters I make as a player in D&D are always overwhelmingly human. Because that is the easiest headspace to get into. Demihumans I really have not connected with as a player. It's just not my comfort zone.

So if you have lead on a 5e game online, point me at it! Because I have a major hunger for one.

Quote from: Shasarak;1134731I am tired of not enough people lambasting Razor 007.  I blame it on people wasting their energy on the culture war instead of on their fellow nerds where it should be targeted.

The culture war you mention is wayyyyy past old, and unfortunately it has influenced RPGs.

Some stuff that comes to mind...

Initiative: I refuse to use "Initiative" ever again to determine order of actions in combat. I'm sick of it and every time I've tried it again just to play D&D RAW it reminds me how sluggish and disjointed it makes combat feel, and how much effort it is compared to just handling order of actions by GM fiat, PC/player readiness and/or proximity to target or objective. I might consider allowing individual test between opposing adversaries to see who strikes "first", but that's it--I don't care what the dice said, I determine order of actions, not them.

Alignment: Haven't used it in decades. It's silly, just play your character.

People Who Bitch About Min/Maxing: Which is a subset of "wrong-fun" and passive aggressive people who bitch at you for failing to fulfill some unwritten, unspecified expectation that they failed to properly and explicitly define from the get-go, or just expect other people to build their characters the way they want them to for arbitrary reasons. Min/Maxing is a virtue, not a vice, and any problems with it lie either in the imagination of people who have a problem with it, or systems that are unbalanced and/or fail to properly account for "RP" selections as a structured component of characters creation and/or progression (which IMO, ALL systems should explicitly define and provide for free, along with stuff like "backgrounds" to better define your character). But shrewd players are never wrong to make the best of what they're provided with. It's not their fault the system sucks or that you have different criteria than they do.

People Who Defend D&D Like It's a Wounded Animal Struggling to Stay Alive: Seriously, It's the 800 pound gorilla, not the underdog. And the only time it got passed by another game it was it's own fault, it still remained more prevalent than other games, and the RPG that passed it was a fucking clone of D&D.

Character Classes: They're limited and constricting, and paradoxically only gotten worse as more classes with more options have cropped up over the years. They are the center of bloat, and the more classes and constricted options within them that you have, the more bloat they become. Current D&D classes make me look back with fondness at old D&D, and I don't even like classes.

Spell Memorization: I haven't even enforced this in my life and it was literally the first house rule I ever implemented. Spell memorization is stupid and unnecessary, and I don't believe it adds anything to the game, but more bookkeeping and complications.

Spell Slots: I've been seriously considering dropping them entirely and replacing them with ability check with difficulty based on spell level. The only thing that's stopping me is the possibility of healing spells getting out of hand, and the fact that I hate...

D&D Spell Levels: They are useless and arbitrary, and you probably don't need that many. They were never properly defined in the entire history of D&D and there is no clear, objective criteria to determine WTF exactly constitutes a Level 5 vs a Level 3 spell, etc. Fireball is level 3, and it's more powerful than most level 4 or 5 spells. It's all guesswork. They do not facilitate determining the level of power of magic in the game, they simply add to the layers of bloated spells that exist within it, and every supplement that includes them adds to this mess with disparate degrees of power per spell level.

Hahaha! Nice. :D

I'm burnt out on playing the losing side of wargame. As in GMing games with lots of tactical depth. From the player end that might be cool, but as a GM, I just don't care. I have no desire to "win" or out-think the players.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1134735I would kill for a good 5e game online. I've never actually played 5e. Though I own most of the books that matter for it.

The characters I make as a player in D&D are always overwhelmingly human. Because that is the easiest headspace to get into. Demihumans I really have not connected with as a player. It's just not my comfort zone.

So if you have lead on a 5e game online, point me at it! Because I have a major hunger for one.

Unfortuantely i dont do 5e anymore, my last game was a pbp game on rolegate and i dont think ill be running it again since i have a lot of other systems i like more or want to try like Astonishing Swordsman and Sorcerors of Hyperborea or Lion and Dragon.

Any game created in Sweden.

Star Wars, as a genre. I thought it was the Woke garbage of the last trilogy that killed it for me, but the whole thing just seems tired.

Pretty burned out on skill checks. A group of younger players start calling for skill checks every time their characters move an inch (game movement).

Player: I move to within 15 feet of the door can I make a perception check?
DM: what are you looking for?
Player: (doesn't answer question) I move 5 feet, can I make a stealth check?
DM: are you hiding from the door? The mage is 10 feet behind you with a torch and you are in an empty room.
Player: How about a History check to know if the room has always been empty?
DM: no, I'm sure the room had a use before the building fell into ruins ages ago. Anybody else?
Player 2: I want to use athletics to smash down the door player 1 is hiding behind.
DM: screw it, sure.

Quote from: Aglondir;1134754Star Wars, as a genre. I thought it was the Woke garbage of the last trilogy that killed it for me, but the whole thing just seems tired.

Episode 2 was so bad that it retroactively ruined Episodes 4-6 for me as well, and killed my interest in running a game of it.  On the positive side, I didn't watch anything after that.  And I didn't buy the d20 Star Wars stuff.

Quote from: DocJones;1134753Any game created in Sweden.

Why's that if you dont mind me asking.

Quote from: DocJones;1134753Any game created in Sweden.

Jeepform hate?

Quote from: Aglondir;1134754Star Wars, as a genre. I thought it was the Woke garbage of the last trilogy that killed it for me, but the whole thing just seems tired.

For me, I'm just burned out with the movie franchise. I'll still watch the Mandalorian (till they inevitably f'ck it up somewhere down the line; then I'll simply move on like I did after the prequels). And while I'll never consider anything other than the original Holy Trilogy canon and my interest on it has wained, I would still play a game based on the EU or the Mandalorian if the chance came up.

I am burnt out on the culture war damaging the hobby and dividing gamers.

I am burnt out on companies and conventions virtue signalling to people who will never be customers while alienating their actual customers.

I am burnt out on art books pretending to be games.

Quote from: Shasarak;1134731I am tired of not enough people lambasting Razor 007.

I shall endeavor to lamb baste Razor 007 more in the future.

His lamb shall indeed be basted.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1134751I'm burnt out on playing the losing side of wargame. As in GMing games with lots of tactical depth. From the player end that might be cool, but as a GM, I just don't care. I have no desire to "win" or out-think the players.

Rhedyn, this is an interesting concept to discuss that deserves its own thread.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1134761I shall endeavor to lamb baste Razor 007 more in the future.

His lamb shall indeed be basted.

Finally!

I knew I could rely on Spinachcat.

Quote from: Chainsaw;1134748Hahaha! Nice. :D

Cracks me up

That we have a hobby that's supposed to be about whatever you can imagine, and yet the hobby publicly presents itself as one half sharing their relentless dissatisfaction on all conceivable subjects with the other half who're too timid to make a ruling without getting their thoughts validated by at least two dozen other people.

I'm tired of people acting like you have to choose sides on f'n everything.  Why can't I like all different kinds of games?  Why can't I be disgusted will all politicians?

Quote from: VisionStorm;1134741Some stuff that comes to mind...

Initiative: I refuse to use "Initiative" ever again to determine order of actions in combat. I'm sick of it and every time I've tried it again just to play D&D RAW it reminds me how sluggish and disjointed it makes combat feel, and how much effort it is compared to just handling order of actions by GM fiat, PC/player readiness and/or proximity to target or objective. I might consider allowing individual test between opposing adversaries to see who strikes "first", but that's it--I don't care what the dice said, I determine order of actions, not them.

Alignment: Haven't used it in decades. It's silly, just play your character.

People Who Bitch About Min/Maxing: Which is a subset of "wrong-fun" and passive aggressive people who bitch at you for failing to fulfill some unwritten, unspecified expectation that they failed to properly and explicitly define from the get-go, or just expect other people to build their characters the way they want them to for arbitrary reasons. Min/Maxing is a virtue, not a vice, and any problems with it lie either in the imagination of people who have a problem with it, or systems that are unbalanced and/or fail to properly account for "RP" selections as a structured component of characters creation and/or progression (which IMO, ALL systems should explicitly define and provide for free, along with stuff like "backgrounds" to better define your character). But shrewd players are never wrong to make the best of what they're provided with. It's not their fault the system sucks or that you have different criteria than they do.

People Who Defend D&D Like It's a Wounded Animal Struggling to Stay Alive: Seriously, It's the 800 pound gorilla, not the underdog. And the only time it got passed by another game it was it's own fault, it still remained more prevalent than other games, and the RPG that passed it was a fucking clone of D&D.

Character Classes: They're limited and constricting, and paradoxically only gotten worse as more classes with more options have cropped up over the years. They are the center of bloat, and the more classes and constricted options within them that you have, the more bloat they become. Current D&D classes make me look back with fondness at old D&D, and I don't even like classes.

Spell Memorization: I haven't even enforced this in my life and it was literally the first house rule I ever implemented. Spell memorization is stupid and unnecessary, and I don't believe it adds anything to the game, but more bookkeeping and complications.

Spell Slots: I've been seriously considering dropping them entirely and replacing them with ability check with difficulty based on spell level. The only thing that's stopping me is the possibility of healing spells getting out of hand, and the fact that I hate...

D&D Spell Levels: They are useless and arbitrary, and you probably don't need that many. They were never properly defined in the entire history of D&D and there is no clear, objective criteria to determine WTF exactly constitutes a Level 5 vs a Level 3 spell, etc. Fireball is level 3, and it's more powerful than most level 4 or 5 spells. It's all guesswork. They do not facilitate determining the level of power of magic in the game, they simply add to the layers of bloated spells that exist within it, and every supplement that includes them adds to this mess with disparate degrees of power per spell level.

Sounds like you'd enjoy Mini Six RPG! https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/144558/Mini-Six-Bare-Bones-Edition

I love running D&D style fantasy in Mini Six and not having any of the above to deal with (and no hit points either). Though we did go back to using Initiative after the playtest.

Burned out on...

RPGs becoming just another Brand Exercise for the various IPs.
Social Media making discussion around RPGs as pointless and toxic as it does everything it touches.
Culture War bullshit infecting RPGs.
RPG designer after designer going Full.SJW.
VTT's that require coding to customize.
The majority of new games coming out being OSR or PbtA.
Narrative bullshit in general, especially the Distinction Deniers playing the same game for 12 fucking years.
WotC D&D

A subset of what many have mentioned:
Edition Wars.

Freakshow parties with every race concievable represented but no actual character beyond "I'm a tiefling", no goals in character and no willingness to have influence in the game world. (I once told a player who wanted to play a unicorn "I'm not running a bloody freakshow!")

Kitchen sink settings where every conceivable race and culture all live in their isolated little enclave. (see above).

D&D in general. Mechanics as well as  implied "fiction" from mechanics. D&D as it's own style of fantasy.

Retro Clones/Inspired Bys.

TTRPG as a "community"/Cult/Industry.

Weird Fantasy

Arneson vs. Gygax and who did what.

Full Color Hardback rulebooks

Humanoids who look like they work out.



*Note- A few of these things I actually enjoy, but am just burned out on.

Explanations of what an RPG is, exp. those that refer to when you were a kid and played "make-believe" with your friends.

Spasmodic research of "balance".

Noticing marginally interesting threads on the RPG Site posted the day before but with already 58 pages of answers to read before I can post something substantial.

Posts about "The Men in Black want for you to play the Pleiadian Branch of Sartre's D&D version!" - presuming that someone beside my players can tell me how I run my D&D games.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1134761I am burnt out on art books pretending to be games.

SO MUCH THIS! There are a number of highly rated games out there I'll never bother picking up because their presentation is filled with this chaotic, chicken-scratch art style that looks like the doodles I used to fill notebooks with during class in high school. I'm not willing to say it's bad art because taste is so highly subjective. But I'll say my own response to it borders on outright revulsion and as such I want nothing to do with the game inside.

Just an addendum. Technically I'm not "burned out on", because I hated this editorial choice the very moment I met it. Anyway, I really, really, really hate oWoD habit to start every supplement with 2-4 badly written "stories" (usually printed in retina-ripping fonts on cornea-damaging backgrounds). Stories that made no sense at all until you actually read the book's "fluff" printed after them. How this habit didn't kill the oWoD on day one will always be a mystery to me.

For the same thing only done right just look at David Pulver's superbrief narratives that introduced the various chapters in his supplements for GURPS. Short, meaty and genuinely titillating for the contents to come.

Burned out on D&D as such in general; its been a long time and it still hasn't healed.
I'm burnt out on most art that is displayed with products starting around 3e and onward, if its right to say it as such; I miss that 2e and 1e art style, if the art even hints at anime I begin to loathe it. The Elmore paintings or the black and white art work of Savage Sword of Conan is what I require.

I used to be a huge realms fan, then the time of troubles began stress, as everyone felt they did not get to know or appreciate the dead 3 gods until those novels, which removed them in the process of giving them character, replaced them with Cyric, which was fine by me as the original version of Cyric allowed you to do both monolithic evil or to have him continue to appear to people as one of the dead 3 gods...

Then the prince of lies & Crucible  novels did the same thing in that it gave us a great look at the evil god Cyric before changing him from that very satan-esque/hades look to a more insane Loki-like entity. Players lamented a lack of Bane, the Hitler of realms gods, with those black and red banners and black platemailed warriors with red capes, they settle for Iyachtu-xvim, bane's son, but could hardly get past that god-awful name, then in 3rd edition Xvim became bane but with a black and green rather than black and red motiff...it seemed it was finally over, we could have Bane, Cyric, and Cyric-as-Bhaal, and with Velsharoon and the crown of horns we could have Myrkul too, and w/o "defying" canon or confusing new-player realms fans.

And then they raped the goose again with 4e, which i never bothered to try once i saw "power cards" for it in the book store and was like nope. I'm told they unraped realms again in a re-do for 5th that was hand wavium and amounts to yet another rape regardless. But long before that, once you have red wizard of thay walmarts and anime kiddies arguing about wealth by level charts and how they have a right to buy this or that item I was pretty well done with it. I liked the Netheril boxed set of second edition as a setting, very pre-world Conan-esque, and free of all this god drama, but it was never developed much past that one boxed set and at least one novel that I'm aware of.

We are all fans of Dragonlance, but as a setting, for me as a GM, it was hard to run, like, if you are not the heroes of the lance then the world and "what do" are a giant F'n questionmark. I hear they raped DL too with chaos war and war of souls material. I remember early on when the basic set boxes (red blue green black gold etc) could still be bought in stores they sold these huge fold out full color hex maps of mystara and karatura, i liked those but never retained them, turns out that was mystara, I just made shit up to go in each hex myself, those where fun.

Ravenloft. The best setting w/o being the best setting. Almost never did you encounter a player arguing canon or novel angles at you about Ravenloft. Not sure why. It's not nailed down and ever shifting nature I think perhaps precluded such. I'll mention darksun, it had great art, and was great for a 1 or 2 shot adventure but seemed to lack staying power as a setting, could never hold our interest for a whole campaign. I do not miss the strife of buying and trying all these things.

But i found nirvana, rules-wise, system-wise, when i found that the D6 star wars rules had been adapted to other genres as D6 fantasy-adventure-space. For me there is no going back. The only real complaint and something i've toyed with the idea of trying to remedy is concrete settings for these. The problem is that once you do that you've lost much of the versatility of these three wide-genre systems. D6 Adventure for example can cover so much crap, from napoleonic era to low-end sci-fi like firefly/serenity, james bond, rambo, top gun, cthuluhu, indiana jones, DOOM, Resident Evil, Terminator, Dresden Files, wild west/wierd west...ad infinitum...that trying to nail down a singular setting for it would be just a giant bowl containing sub-settings.

I think maybe I'm just burned out on everything in general and that stunning amazement feeling of yore is gone forever and nostalgia is a curse. I remember that elmore cover art for the boxed sets of basic (metzner?) and how my mind could extrapolate infinite scenes and adventures from what the eye could take in, and now it seems like so much crushed and powdered jade littering the floor of a cool and placid lake where once an emerald ship of fantasy and adventure had sailed. Now we set at the shores of that lake and try to remember, we cast stones of lamentation into it, we hope the nessy beast of the lake comes forward with the lakes lady astride it so that she may hand us an emerald sword forged anew of that shattered and forgotten ship...and we know only sadness as the water remains placid. not even luna's light upon the water, a majestic cgi effect to be sure, brings us closer to that coveted joy or dulls the ache of longing for what once was. There were moments of such human connection in those gone days where I'm positive each person at the table had exactly the same picture of the scene in their minds eye shared perfectly in exact detail as solidly as if we were all on the same holo deck.

But that was a more civilized time, before the dark times, before the builds and the manuevers and the tyranny of canon.

[video=youtube;r3_c1QeLO40]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3_c1QeLO40[/youtube]

Quote from: Slipshot762;1134936I think maybe I'm just burned out on everything in general and that stunning amazement feeling of yore is gone forever and nostalgia is a curse.

There's plenty of magic in the old tattered books.

With the right group of players, you can ignore the current nonsense and revel in grand adventures. If you love the original canon of any setting, its still there and there's no reason you must consider anything beyond.

The culture wars frankly tired of them

Revisionist history that group, gender etc were purposefully excluded from the hobby. One bad experience is not an concentrated effort by gamers to keep them out.

D&D First Edition I like the rpg and it will have a fond place in my heart as it was the first rpg I bought and ran, but man poorly organized and Gary Gygax comes off a pretentious asshole of a jerk in those books. One truwaysim "I'm not telling you that your doing it wrong yet if you don't do it exactly like how I do it your doing it wrong". I felt like asking him while he was alive to show whre on the DMG his players broke him.

Gamers who think they can by tommorow gaming products today at yesterday prices.

People who complain about min-maxers. I will take those kind of players over the ones that go out of their way to make the shittiest character around on purpose then moan it's unfair. The first group can actually do something the second most of the time is useless at the table. "what do you mean your not carrying my share of the treasure!". Sorry bucko you want to make the STr 10 Figter in D&D because of reasons and feels now suffer the consequences.

Fans of rpgs in decline in like Gurps and Hero Games yet want nothing to change, provide no solutions beyond maintaining the status quo then whine and complain they cannot find GMS to play with or gamers to run for.

Rpg designers jumping on the SJW bandwagon then having the stones to complain when their hypocrisy is called out. Fred Hicks is a good example of this.

I do not know if the fans are hurting GURPS insofar as changes.  I think it just has not made him money in a long time.  I thought they were on the right track with Dungeon Fantasy, and I think a Sci fi or post apoc presentation along those lines would have gone well.  I can not speak to Hero, I have the 5th edition book, and already having and playing GURPs, it looked better for supers with high power levels, but I do not play super hero games (well, every genre, the heros are essentially super heros already by human standards).  I did like the look of several of their full color books when they made that switch in 6th edition.  I am not sure that helped them or hurt them.  

    Out of curiosity what changes do you think can be made to GURPs to get more fans?  I honestly always thought better art,  and a couple of good fleshed out settings for various genres instead of toolkits.  I thought they sort of had too many toolkits.    I thought the templates and such for Dungeon Fantasy were a step to giving people a defined idea instead of too many tools and not enough training.   But I am also not the right person to ask.  If they came out with a new edition and 10 books in that edition, I would buy all of them.

I think where Dungeon Fantasy went wrong was the assumed power level.  It heaped option after option onto players without a chance to get used to them.  Same concept, but standard what... 100?  150?  That might have been more approachable.

Quote from: S'mon;1134795Sounds like you'd enjoy Mini Six RPG! https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/144558/Mini-Six-Bare-Bones-Edition

I love running D&D style fantasy in Mini Six and not having any of the above to deal with (and no hit points either). Though we did go back to using Initiative after the playtest.

Yeah, I've considered checking out Mini Six. It's built on a good foundation (d6 System) while following a minimalistic approach. IMO, 4 attributes is all you need. I've often thought that D&D's ability scores were too stretched out and could be reduced to just the four used in Mini Six.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1134936I'm burnt out on most art that is displayed with products starting around 3e and onward, if its right to say it as such; I miss that 2e and 1e art style, if the art even hints at anime I begin to loathe it. The Elmore paintings or the black and white art work of Savage Sword of Conan is what I require.

I've hated all D&D art starting with 3e, and 3e's layout design in particular was horrendous and a prime example of how not to design a RPG book layout. But the art looks so plastic and uninspired. It's like modern fantasy art inspired by more fantasy art that was put together by committee.

It doesn't have an epic feel at all and doesn't transport me to a world of myth and legend, because IMO, it wasn't inspired by myth and legend, but by D&D itself as a self-referential source. I miss old D&D art: Larry Elmore, Clyde Caldwell, Jeff Easley, Gerald Brom, Keith Parkinson, etc. It was some of the best fantasy art ever.

Quote from: oggsmash;1134973Out of curiosity what changes do you think can be made to GURPs to get more fans?  I honestly always thought better art,  and a couple of good fleshed out settings for various genres instead of toolkits.  I thought they sort of had too many toolkits.    I thought the templates and such for Dungeon Fantasy were a step to giving people a defined idea instead of too many tools and not enough training.   But I am also not the right person to ask.  If they came out with a new edition and 10 books in that edition, I would buy all of them.

If they want to expand, they need to stop listening to the gearheads. They focused on the needs of niche audience of diehards, which alienates everyone else.

I don't see that happening. They've made their choice, and it does have some advantages, like a dedicated fan base and some very focused material. But a consequence of that narrow focus is they seem to have lost any grasp of what appeals to a broader audience (in RPGs; Munchkin is a different animal), and their attempts like Dungeon Fantasy come across as tone deaf.

Quote from: Razor 007;1134711What RPG stuff are you burned out on?

Terrible GMs and just bad role-players.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135006Yeah, I've considered checking out Mini Six. It's built on a good foundation (d6 System) while following a minimalistic approach. IMO, 4 attributes is all you need. I've often thought that D&D's ability scores were too stretched out and could be reduced to just the four used in Mini Six.

I've hated all D&D art starting with 3e, and 3e's layout design in particular was horrendous and a prime example of how not to design a RPG book layout. But the art looks so plastic and uninspired. It's like modern fantasy art inspired by more fantasy art that was put together by committee.

It doesn't have an epic feel at all and doesn't transport me to a world of myth and legend, because IMO, it wasn't inspired by myth and legend, but by D&D itself as a self-referential source. I miss old D&D art: Larry Elmore, Clyde Caldwell, Jeff Easley, Gerald Brom, Keith Parkinson, etc. It was some of the best fantasy art ever.

Comparing Mini Six to D6 Fantasy, I find the former actually has more "stuff" - including a decent sized bestiary & a bunch of PC templates in the settings - it's just the presentation is incredibly concise. The Skills & TN detailing is similar level to 5e D&D, which works for me. The Perks & Complications systems are great, much better design on the Complications than base D6 System's equivalent advantage/disadvantage approach IMO. It's just all presented so concisely I had to play it to appreciate it.

Art - I agree 3e D&D art sucks, 4e D&D art mostly looks plasticy though I much prefer it to 3e. 5e D&D art is pretty inoffensive though. But I much prefer the pre-3e artists and use their stuff IMCs.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135006Yeah, I've considered checking out Mini Six. It's built on a good foundation (d6 System) while following a minimalistic approach. IMO, 4 attributes is all you need. I've often thought that D&D's ability scores were too stretched out and could be reduced to just the four used in Mini Six.



I've hated all D&D art starting with 3e, and 3e's layout design in particular was horrendous and a prime example of how not to design a RPG book layout. But the art looks so plastic and uninspired. It's like modern fantasy art inspired by more fantasy art that was put together by committee.

It doesn't have an epic feel at all and doesn't transport me to a world of myth and legend, because IMO, it wasn't inspired by myth and legend, but by D&D itself as a self-referential source. I miss old D&D art: Larry Elmore, Clyde Caldwell, Jeff Easley, Gerald Brom, Keith Parkinson, etc. It was some of the best fantasy art ever.

You need to see the art in Dungeon Crawl Classics.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1134936I think maybe I'm just burned out on everything in general and that stunning amazement feeling of yore is gone forever and nostalgia is a curse. I remember that elmore cover art for the boxed sets of basic (metzner?) and how my mind could extrapolate infinite scenes and adventures from what the eye could take in, and now it seems like so much crushed and powdered jade littering the floor of a cool and placid lake where once an emerald ship of fantasy and adventure had sailed. Now we set at the shores of that lake ...

That was very nicely poetic, and that was me for a long time too.  RPGs were fun to argue about and occasionally play, and on the rare occasion I ran a game everyone had fun, but I was mostly bored with the whole thing.  Been there, done that, a million times over.  Then my son, out of the blue and without even knowing that I had been a serious gamer at one point, asked me to teach him how to play D&D.  We got some of his friends together and I ran them through a simple adventure to start with.  They were _so_ into it and excited, and I really enjoyed vicariously experiencing the first-time gamer rush through them.  It's all new again.  So that's my suggestion to anyone who wants to renew their interest in the hobby:  play with your kids.  (or any reasonable substitute if you don't have any)

There's a lot of things I'm tired of, but here's a few near the top of the list:

1)  Pseudo Tolkeinesque games.  There's been so many of those that the design space is exhausted.  Unless you can inject the actual majesty of Tolkein, I'm going to pass on those.

2)  Games that put in strange or unique things just to be different without any underlying narrative coherence.  

3) Games that read like textbooks.  Pure mechanical descriptions are really boring.  Learning new rules is trivial, but I still don't care to make the effort unless the game can show me how they enable cool/evocative/engaging play through good examples or short narratives.  Gygax was fun to read and his writing set the tone for the game.  The other end of the spectrum was 4E, I couldn't stay awake trying to read the rules.

Quote from: Mishihari;1135043There's a lot of things I'm tired of, but here's a few near the top of the list:

1)  Pseudo Tolkeinesque games.  There's been so many of those that the design space is exhausted.  Unless you can inject the actual majesty of Tolkein, I'm going to pass on those.

2)  Games that put in strange or unique things just to be different without any underlying narrative coherence.  

3) Games that read like textbooks.  Pure mechanical descriptions are really boring.  Learning new rules is trivial, but I still don't care to make the effort unless the game can show me how they enable cool/evocative/engaging play through good examples or short narratives.  Gygax was fun to read and his writing set the tone for the game.  The other end of the spectrum was 4E, I couldn't stay awake trying to read the rules.

But there were 30 Levels, and the Classes were balanced throughout with Powers!!!

Paranoia!
I ran 2e a lot last century, and it was the last of my old RPG-stuff that i got rid off before getting the RPG-bug again.
Now whenever I come across an old book or read an article I just feel "no, never again!".
Like when you´ve eaten too much cake. I still love cake but just cant eat another bite.

Anything Mythos. Most gamers don't get  it to start with, and it's been done to death anyway.

The only thing the Mythos has going for it these days is that the SJW's have targeted Lovecraft, so it's a thumb in their eye.

Like many others, the arrival of the postmodern culture wars with its leftarded victimhood in the RPG space has ruined so many things. Look at ENWorld: It was once free of religion and politics, and now it has devolved into RPG.net-lite.

Quote from: sureshot;1134965(snip) D&D First Edition I like the rpg and it will have a fond place in my heart as it was the first rpg I bought and ran, but man poorly organized and Gary Gygax comes off a pretentious asshole of a jerk in those books. One truwaysim "I'm not telling you that your doing it wrong yet if you don't do it exactly like how I do it your doing it wrong". I felt like asking him while he was alive to show whre on the DMG his players broke him. (snip)

I can't handle Gary Gygax being referred to as some sort of authority on game design and/or the game business. He wrote OD&D. It was a mess. That's forgivable as it was new. He then wrote AD&D. It was a bigger mess. That was unforgivable, especially as he pontificated about how there was "one true way" that he had written... somewhere beneath the layers of contradictions and chaos. Not to be outdone, after catching lightning in a jar with D&D, he then shot diarrhoea through a straw with Dangerous Journeys, Cyborg Commando, and some other crap I have erased from memory.

Finally, criticisms of 4E whenever someone tries to say something positive about it. The editions wars are over; 4E lost. Some of us, however, still like it. Sometimes we even like to talk about it online. Do the edition wars really need to be fought again whenever this happens?

1) Constant fighting for playstyles or gatekeeping.

The hobby is so vast, just play what you like and stop trying to diminish what other people like just because it's different from what you like.

I think the thing I'm tired of is not finding a system that I click with I guess. I've been running 5th edition, and the players like it, but the thing just feels antithetical to everything I've ever really done before. I hate hate hate the skill system in it. Its too narrow. Also hate the lack of really any system other than exploration and combat stuff. Not that you need a system to do social things, but it would help when your players are interested in trying to gain skill in artisan and craftsman type stuff.

Also, sick of WotC and their shit. 5th edition has been okay, I like a lot of its mechanics, but the dearth of content is just, meh. The modules have been pretty solid, basically mini campaigns. Some more settings and splat books would be nice.

Also, really tired of getting interested in running a Palladium game, and then remembering that the system is shit, and will always be shit.

Quote from: Itachi;11350681) Constant fighting for playstyles or gatekeeping.

The hobby is so vast, just play what you like and stop trying to diminish what other people like just because it's different from what you like.

I'm burned out on people claiming that advocating a playstyle is "fighting". Also, anyone who insists "gatekeeping" is a thing because someone doesn't want to play with them.

I do lament the lack of new blood to play GURPS I guess, but I also take a look at some of the stunning and brave changes for D&D spurred by having lots of new players the last decade....and to be honest, I will take the fewer people with GURPS

Gygax was an authority on game design.  What he designed with mostly cosmetic changes, is still here, selling well.  What he was terrible at was business, no argument there.  But to go back and pick over mistakes he made in failed games after D&D or design changes he "should have made" when he is literally the only reason anyone here is posting, is a bit....off.   I did not like everything he did, and AD&D was a mess.  Inventing something new is a lot harder than streamlining or engineering a proven design.

Quote from: Brad;1135080

Quote from: Itachi1) Constant fighting for playstyles or gatekeeping.

I'm burned out on people claiming that advocating a playstyle is "fighting". Also, anyone who insists "gatekeeping" is a..

Thanks for your insight.

(https://i.imgur.com/4bUV7Ls.gif)

Quote from: Brad;1135080I'm burned out on people claiming that advocating a playstyle is "fighting". Also, anyone who insists "gatekeeping" is a thing because someone doesn't want to play with them.

I mean, "gatekeeping" isn't inherently bad either. I find most arguments where people invoke the concept and accuse someone of doing it are usually just appeals to popularity (5e is the best because its player so much, and you're dumb for not liking it) or strawmen (you're just a grognard, incel, boomer, etc.). Discussion about what playstyles you prefer, when done in good faith, I can't see anything wrong with that.

Quote from: Itachi;1135083Thanks for your insight.

(https://i.imgur.com/4bUV7Ls.gif)

You're welcome!

Quote from: ZetaRidley;1135089I mean, "gatekeeping" isn't inherently bad either. I find most arguments where people invoke the concept and accuse someone of doing it are usually just appeals to popularity (5e is the best because its player so much, and you're dumb for not liking it) or strawmen (you're just a grognard, incel, boomer, etc.). Discussion about what playstyles you prefer, when done in good faith, I can't see anything wrong with that.

My whole issue with this gatekeeping crap is that it implies you're somehow keeping people from playing D&D if you don't want them in your game. Yeah, so what? Make your own fucking group. When I was younger, there was a lot of "gatekeeping" from the older kids who didn't want some of us to play with them because they were SERIOUS about their campaigns. And looking back, they were right: they were running dark shit with lots of assassins and demons and whatever, my group had fucking X-wing fighters and dudes beating the shit out of each other with talking clubs. That's no different than telling some girl who dresses up like a cat she's not welcome at your table because you really don't want to shoehorn some dumbass feline-humanoid thing into the campaign you've been running for the past ten years.

I gate keep all the time when I make decisions on who I want to invite into my home. I, personally, am not there to "make as many people as possible comfortable". If I invite you over, I'll do my best. If I decide not to, fuck off.

Quote from: Brad;1135091My whole issue with this gatekeeping crap is that it implies you're somehow keeping people from playing D&D if you don't want them in your game. Yeah, so what? Make your own fucking group. When I was younger, there was a lot of "gatekeeping" from the older kids who didn't want some of us to play with them because they were SERIOUS about their campaigns. And looking back, they were right: they were running dark shit with lots of assassins and demons and whatever, my group had fucking X-wing fighters and dudes beating the shit out of each other with talking clubs. That's no different than telling some girl who dresses up like a cat she's not welcome at your table because you really don't want to shoehorn some dumbass feline-humanoid thing into the campaign you've been running for the past ten years.

This is basically right, and what I agree with. More often than not, groups fall apart because its a bunch of people that all want different things. That's why noobs have such a hard time with their early groups, I think. That and the society and the culture war as of late has this idea that we all can get along and be able to do anything with anyone else. Yeah, no way. You are never going to mesh with every person you meet, its not going to happen.

Quote from: SavageSchemer;1135092I gate keep all the time when I make decisions on who I want to invite into my home. I, personally, am not there to "make as many people as possible comfortable". If I invite you over, I'll do my best. If I decide not to, fuck off.

Yeah. I've kicked people out before from games and what not, so I get this. I don't owe anyone anything, and vice versa.

Further, I really don't think gatekeeping is a bad thing. It can be. But, without proper criticism and analysis, the unwashed masses on the internet would declare harry potter the be-all of literature. There is a reason why literary, film, culture criticism exists, and it definitely has merit. Now, being a dick about your opinion, rather than having a discussion, that's the difference.

Min-maxers. I'm just fed up with them. They turn the whole situation into an arms race that the GM is forced to keep up with. And frankly, it is tiring to put up with their bullying need to make the game group bow to them.

It's a group activity. Don't want to play like it is? Then there is the door!

I have gotten too old to put up with bad players. And that's what min-maxers are. BAD PLAYERS!

Quote from: oggsmash;1135082Gygax was an authority on game design.  What he designed with mostly cosmetic changes, is still here, selling well.  What he was terrible at was business, no argument there.  But to go back and pick over mistakes he made in failed games after D&D or design changes he "should have made" when he is literally the only reason anyone here is posting, is a bit....off.   I did not like everything he did, and AD&D was a mess.  Inventing something new is a lot harder than streamlining or engineering a proven design.

His fingerprints are still all over D&D.  The game has undergone many changes, but we still roll a d20 to hit the armor class of monsters which have been in the game for over 40 years.  A tip of the hat to Arneson too.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135118Min-maxers. I'm just fed up with them. They turn the whole situation into an arms race that the GM is forced to keep up with. And frankly, it is tiring to put up with their bullying need to make the game group bow to them.

It's a group activity. Don't want to play like it is? Then there is the door!

I have gotten too old to put up with bad players. And that's what min-maxers are. BAD PLAYERS!

Stop gatekeeping.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135118Min-maxers. I'm just fed up with them. They turn the whole situation into an arms race that the GM is forced to keep up with. And frankly, it is tiring to put up with their bullying need to make the game group bow to them.

It's a group activity. Don't want to play like it is? Then there is the door!

I have gotten too old to put up with bad players. And that's what min-maxers are. BAD PLAYERS!

I'm sure that people of superior intellect must seem threatening to those with lesser minds, but the game was turned into an arms race by crap designers who failed to institute proper constraints into their systems. And as cathartic as pounding on your betters might seem, they are not responsible for the ineptitude of game designers or for the failings of weak GMs who lack the testicular fortitude to don the Viking Hat, or the foresight to place their own limits or build requirements in their campaigns, rather than slavishly adhere to broken game rules or whine that other people won't follow their unspecified criteria when building their characters.

Quote from: ZetaRidley;1135078Also, really tired of getting interested in running a Palladium game, and then remembering that the system is shit, and will always be shit.

Being a Palladium gamer requires zen...and it's worth it.

Deep breath.
Accept the system is shit.
Accept that Kevin will NEVER change.
Accept that the slightest balance was never the goal.
Accept that you will hammer the system to make it work at your table.
Exhale.
Now go play your favorite Palladium game and have a great time.  

I don't know why and I don't know how, but hot damn, Palladium freaking rocks at the table in actual play if you have a good group.

Hey, kevin allowed Savage Rifts to be made.  I think he has certainly changed just a little bit.   I have several books, but never played, but Unisystem always struck me as a marriage of GURPS and Pallidium's system.   Ah the days of taking boxing to get extra attacks with a sword.  Or a gun.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135135I'm sure that people of superior intellect must seem threatening to those with lesser minds, but the game was turned into an arms race by crap designers who failed to institute proper constraints into their systems. And as cathartic as pounding on your betters might seem, they are not responsible for the ineptitude of game designers or for the failings of weak GMs who lack the testicular fortitude to don the Viking Hat, or the foresight to place their own limits or build requirements in their campaigns, rather than slavishly adhere to broken game rules or whine that other people won't follow their unspecified criteria when building their characters.

All I see here is more bullying. And the same old washed out excuses pushed forward by players who refuse to play well with others.

Like I said earlier. I've gotten too old for this tired old line of bullshit. Bad players have their invitations to my table rescinded. End of story.

I have become picky about who I invite to any game I run. Gone are the days of dealing with random strangers in online media for running games. If I don't know the player, they aren't going to game with me. That's the beginning and end of it.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135163All I see here is more bullying.

Like begets like. I almost never see min/maxers tout their superiority or belittle others for not sharing their gaming habits or criteria, yet I can't join a conversation about RPGs, particularly online, without running into someone whining about min/maxers and portraying them as this somehow subhuman (despite having superior talents for optimization) class of gamers worthy of scorn. So I responded to you in kind, cuz frankly I'm tired of the passive aggressive bullshit and superior attitudes from people who are clearly inferior (otherwise they wouldn't have a problem with others being able to build better characters than them).

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135163And the same old washed out excuses pushed forward by players who refuse to play well with others.

Like I said earlier. I've gotten too old for this tired old line of bullshit.

All I see is the same washed out excuses pushed forward by people who refuse to accept reality or take responsibility for setting their own campaign standards and being upfront about their expectations like a grown up.

Like I said earlier, these are game design and GMing issues. And rejecting reality won't make that not a fact.

Also, having a talent for optimization and refusing to play well with others are two different things. I have met people with close to zero talent or inclination for min/maxing who are also asshats, and the only time I've had a problem with min/maxers was back when I didn't heed my own advice and I was the passive aggressive idiot bitching at my players for maxing their Strength when they were playing melee characters (like the game allows them a better alternative), or not taking enough "background" skills and such.

Eventually I grew wiser, accepted the game limitations I couldn't change (if melee attacks were tied to STR melee characters would naturally max it), and houseruled the ones I could, such as handing out free background skills from a limited list (before 5e standardized backgrounds) to ensure all characters were well rounded, rather than bitch at my players for failing to build their characters in accordance to some criteria I never specified.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135163Bad players have their invitations to my table rescinded. End of story.

I have become picky about who I invite to any game I run. Gone are the days of dealing with random strangers in online media for running games. If I don't know the player, they aren't going to game with me. That's the beginning and end of it.

As is your right as a GM. But if you want to use your Viking Hat to kick players out, perhaps you should consider the more effective strategy of using it instead to set your campaign standards and expectations up front, rather than whine that people with a superior grasp for game mechanics exist.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135181Like begets like. I almost never see min/maxers tout their superiority or belittle others for not sharing their gaming habits or criteria, yet I can't join a conversation about RPGs, particularly online, without running into someone whining about min/maxers and portraying them as this somehow subhuman (despite having superior talents for optimization) class of gamers worthy of scorn. So I responded to you in kind, cuz frankly I'm tired of the passive aggressive bullshit and superior attitudes from people who are clearly inferior (otherwise they wouldn't have a problem with others being able to build better characters than them).



All I see is the same washed out excuses pushed forward by people who refuse to accept reality or take responsibility for setting their own campaign standards and being upfront about their expectations like a grown up.

Like I said earlier, these are game design and GMing issues. And rejecting reality won't make that not a fact.

Also, having a talent for optimization and refusing to play well with others are two different things. I have met people with close to zero talent or inclination for min/maxing who are also asshats, and the only time I've had a problem with min/maxers was back when I didn't heed my own advice and I was the passive aggressive idiot bitching at my players for maxing their Strength when they were playing melee characters (like the game allows them a better alternative), or not taking enough "background" skills and such.

Eventually I grew wiser, accepted the game limitations I couldn't change (if melee attacks were tied to STR melee characters would naturally max it), and houseruled the ones I could, such as handing out free background skills from a limited list (before 5e standardized backgrounds) to ensure all characters were well rounded, rather than bitch at my players for failing to build their characters in accordance to some criteria I never specified.



As is your right as a GM. But if you want to use your Viking Hat to kick players out, perhaps you should consider the more effective strategy of using it instead to set your campaign standards and expectations up front, rather than whine that people with a superior grasp for game mechanics exist.

I would say min-maxing is just a style of play that, depending on the game and group preferences, can be desirable or not.

Example: I'm playing Shinobigami right now. It's a game that promotes min-maxing explicitly (it's a PvP game). Everybody bought the idea and is having tons of fun trying to find the most devastating combos.

I can see it being a problem for groups or games that promote more a storytelling vibe or something.

Quote from: Brad;1135080I'm burned out on people claiming that advocating a playstyle is "fighting". Also, anyone who insists "gatekeeping" is a thing because someone doesn't want to play with them.

Yes, "Gatekeeping".  Like somehow someone out there can magically stop you from accessing the internet, buying RPG stuff online and organising a game with your friends.

Or "Gatekeeping" like having rules that 11 year olds can understand because bigotry of soft expectations needs to spoon feed you with words of one syllable of less.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135181As is your right as a GM. But if you want to use your Viking Hat to kick players out, perhaps you should consider the more effective strategy of using it instead to set your campaign standards and expectations up front, rather than whine that people with a superior grasp for game mechanics exist.

I have. For decades. And I still get the same type of players who look to publically masturbate with the system. Rather than actually play with the group.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135206I have. For decades. And I still get the same type of players who look to publically masturbate with the system. Rather than actually play with the group.

I think the perfect reason to play a game, is to have fun.  I don't want to memorize hundreds of pages of rules, I want to read a few pages and start playing.  As a DM, maybe 10 to 15 pages and start playing.  Min Maxing doesn't appeal to me.

Quote from: Razor 007;1135233I think the perfect reason to play a game, is to have fun.  I don't want to memorize hundreds of pages of rules, I want to read a few pages and start playing.  As a DM, maybe 10 to 15 pages and start playing.  Min Maxing doesn't appeal to me.

It does appeal to some people though, and thats okay, sometimes its fun to just let peoplw go wild...or just let them play like, godbound or something.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135181Like begets like. I almost never see min/maxers tout their superiority or belittle others for not sharing their gaming habits or criteria, yet I can't join a conversation about RPGs, particularly online, without running into someone whining about min/maxers and portraying them as this somehow subhuman (despite having superior talents for optimization) class of gamers worthy of scorn....

I'm calling BS on this one.  I've seen and heard plenty of conversations online and elsewhere, where minmaxers talked crap about other players who couldn't make "effective" characters.

Some people like to start with a character concept and get as close as they can to it with their game system.  Other people like to start with the system and make as powerful a character as they can with it.  Both approaches are fine, but they don't go well together.  I prefer the former approach so I generally avoid playing with those who take the latter.

Quote from: Mishihari;1135256I'm calling BS on this one.  I've seen and heard plenty of conversations online and elsewhere, where minmaxers talked crap about other players who couldn't make "effective" characters.

What?  Gamers talking crap about how their way is the best way?

Say it is not so!

Quote from: ZetaRidley;1135078I think the thing I'm tired of is not finding a system that I click with I guess. I've been running 5th edition, and the players like it, but the thing just feels antithetical to everything I've ever really done before. I hate hate hate the skill system in it. Its too narrow. Also hate the lack of really any system other than exploration and combat stuff. Not that you need a system to do social things, but it would help when your players are interested in trying to gain skill in artisan and craftsman type stuff.

Also, sick of WotC and their shit. 5th edition has been okay, I like a lot of its mechanics, but the dearth of content is just, meh. The modules have been pretty solid, basically mini campaigns. Some more settings and splat books would be nice.

Also, really tired of getting interested in running a Palladium game, and then remembering that the system is shit, and will always be shit.

On the last point, that's what generic systems are for. Eg D6 and Mini Six for cinematic, BRP or maybe GURPS for a more grounded feel. No system covers all genres/tones but I think it's much easier to convert material than learn a new system.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135118Min-maxers. I'm just fed up with them. They turn the whole situation into an arms race that the GM is forced to keep up with. And frankly, it is tiring to put up with their bullying need to make the game group bow to them.

It's a group activity. Don't want to play like it is? Then there is the door!

I have gotten too old to put up with bad players. And that's what min-maxers are. BAD PLAYERS!

I have no problem with an honest min-maxer, at least they create effective characters who can achieve things.

Quote from: Altheus;1135261I have no problem with an honest min-maxer, at least they create effective characters who can achieve things.

But that is never their goal. Their goal is invariably to bully the rest of the group into doing exactly as they do. And in doing so, they subvert the entire group activity to their will.

This is why I will never believe in an "honest min-maxer". Because their actions show anything but honesty.

IME, powergaming/min-maxing isn't so bad if everyone's on the same page. Nowadays I find that it almost always comes with a degree of dishonesty which poisons the whole lot of it.

Surely, there are systems that don't offer as many bells and whistles to min-maxers.  Run one of those systems.  It will be less likely to attract the min-maxer crowd.

I have embraced the idea that my character is not a superhero, because that's not the type of game I want to play.

I prefer min-maxers over players who insist on making useless characters for reasons and feels.

The first as others have pointed out can actively contribute at the table. The second not only complains about being useless they expect the other players to help them overcome their characters being useless. For example taking a low Str character and then complaining that they cannot hit or damage a creature than whine and complain that the min-maxer can. While also expecting the other players to be their pack mules.

The sad part is some here don't understand what a min-maer is. I can build a D&D Fighter with average to above average stats and take the bread and butter feats and still be told I'm min*maxing. As everyone else was told by the DM it would be a combat oriented campaign and they decided to build pure rileplaying character who cannot hit or damage anything.

Quote from: Scrivener of Doom;1135064I can't handle Gary Gygax being referred to as some sort of authority on game design and/or the game business. He wrote OD&D. It was a mess. That's forgivable as it was new. He then wrote AD&D. It was a bigger mess. That was unforgivable, especially as he pontificated about how there was "one true way" that he had written... somewhere beneath the layers of contradictions and chaos. Not to be outdone, after catching lightning in a jar with D&D, he then shot diarrhoea through a straw with Dangerous Journeys, Cyborg Commando, and some other crap I have erased from memory.

I wanted to by DJ yet after seeing that it continued Gary love of charts, charts and more charts! i passed on it. As you said at the times the earlier stuff he published and his flaws were excusable. Except he just insisted on repeating those same flaws and attitudes in later products. I just do not understand tSR allowing the 1E dMG to be published with Gary essentially telling the DM to punish any player who owns a copy of the DMG. Who writes that in a product you want players to buy and who players need to become DMs. Gary is and was a micromanager of the highest caliber and it shows in his early writing. The DM has control at the gaming table for the most part I don't need their damn permission to buy a product away from the tale.

As for gate keeping it does happen yet to the extent some here and elsewhere want to push in their carefully constructed personal narratives is what bothers me. With one bad experience they never returned to the hobby and proof positive that their is a secret conspiracy to keep them out. Call them out on not trying another gaming table and suddenly one is victim blaming. I was rejected many times when I was younger asking women for dates. If I behaved the same way I would never talk to women let alone ask them out.

Quote from: sureshot;1135434I prefer min-maxers over players who insist on making useless characters for reasons and feels.

The first as others have pointed out can actively contribute at the table. The second not only complains about being useless they expect the other players to help them overcome their characters being useless. For example taking a low Str character and then complaining that they cannot hit or damage a creature than whine and complain that the min-maxer can. While also expecting the other players to be their pack mules.

The sad part is some here don't understand what a min-maer is. I can build a D&D Fighter with average to above average stats and take the bread and butter feats and still be told I'm min*maxing. As everyone else was told by the DM it would be a combat oriented campaign and they decided to build pure rileplaying character who cannot hit or damage anything.

That sounds like an episode of, "Queer Eye for the Crippled Paladin".

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135138Being a Palladium gamer requires zen...and it's worth it.

Deep breath.
Accept the system is shit.
Accept that Kevin will NEVER change.
Accept that the slightest balance was never the goal.
Accept that you will hammer the system to make it work at your table.
Exhale.
Now go play your favorite Palladium game and have a great time.  

I don't know why and I don't know how, but hot damn, Palladium freaking rocks at the table in actual play if you have a good group.

Funny thing is I've been working on a rewrite of the system, basically taking the core ideas like Strike, Parry and Dodge and Percentile skills. Basically codifying stuff and making it flow more. So far, its working.

Quote from: S'mon;1135259On the last point, that's what generic systems are for. Eg D6 and Mini Six for cinematic, BRP or maybe GURPS for a more grounded feel. No system covers all genres/tones but I think it's much easier to convert material than learn a new system.

Yeah, I get what you're saying there. I think the main thing is I would be okay with 5th more if it had a little more of 3rds skill system baked in, but that's just me.

Quote from: sureshot;1135434I prefer min-maxers over players who insist on making useless characters for reasons and feels.

I have never encountered people making deliberately useless characters.

I however have experienced powergamers making their fellow players feel short in the pants with their competently made characters and callously ignoring it... only to then get upset when allowances are made for the other players to catch up.

My sentiments nowadays are powergamers need to read the room and do some self-policing rather than engage in getting one over the table.

Quote from: ZetaRidley;1135443Funny thing is I've been working on a rewrite of the system, basically taking the core ideas like Strike, Parry and Dodge and Percentile skills. Basically codifying stuff and making it flow more. So far, its working.

I was always a fan of Microlite Platinum.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135385But that is never their goal. Their goal is invariably to bully the rest of the group into doing exactly as they do. And in doing so, they subvert the entire group activity to their will.

This is why I will never believe in an "honest min-maxer". Because their actions show anything but honesty.

Tautological arguments are tautological.

This is why I will never believe in a "tautological argument". Because the argument reasserts itself and fails to show anything but tautologies.

Quote from: Razor 007;1135430Surely, there are systems that don't offer as many bells and whistles to min-maxers.  Run one of those systems.  It will be less likely to attract the min-maxer crowd.

Pretty much. The problem with "min/maxers" is systems that lack proper constraints and allow wide power disparities. If the system limits what characters can do or what sort of benefits they can have it will reduce the impact of "min/maxing". Though, even then you could have "min/maxers", depending on what people even mean by that term.

Quote from: sureshot;1135434I prefer min-maxers over players who insist on making useless characters for reasons and feels.

The first as others have pointed out can actively contribute at the table. The second not only complains about being useless they expect the other players to help them overcome their characters being useless. For example taking a low Str character and then complaining that they cannot hit or damage a creature than whine and complain that the min-maxer can. While also expecting the other players to be their pack mules.

Word. Though, low Strength characters aren't necessarily bad, and you could build some proper "min/maxed" characters with low STR (and probably maxed DEX) depending on the system and options available. The issue is ineffective characters who can't pull their own weight figuratively speaking, cuz they don't have anything (or enough) to complement their role or abilities and allow them to perform at least SOME useful adventuring function as part of the group. So they become dead weight the party has to carry around and not contribute anything.

Quote from: sureshot;1135434The sad part is some here don't understand what a min-maer is. I can build a D&D Fighter with average to above average stats and take the bread and butter feats and still be told I'm min*maxing. As everyone else was told by the DM it would be a combat oriented campaign and they decided to build pure rileplaying character who cannot hit or damage anything.

A "min/maxer" is anyone who doesn't build their character like a complete mongoloid, with spread out skills and stats that are all mediocre or low, at least a couple of knowledge based and/or social skills that are rarely, if ever, going to come up in actual play, and not a single thing they're genuinely good at.

I burned out on Kickstarter projects that look awesome and fail to deliver. Time after time. Especially Swedish games, they look pretty, but either try too hard with some neat ideas or are really just art books.
Also tired of hype games like DCC. I used to really enjoy DCC at first, then I realized it is great art, great ideas and very awkward rules. Very few adventures go beyond 5th level because there is little challenge in very little time. The funnels are fun, but it gets old after a while, which is a shame. The gonzo should have been turned down a few notches so that at least 10th level was possible.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135446I have never encountered people making deliberately useless characters.

I have consider yourself fortunate imo.

Were a not just talking about a Fighter who says takes a 10 Str and can perhaps make up for it with decent Dex. The best way to describe it was their desire to give min-maxers and their builds a big middle finger. Which I have no problem with. It's when the same players complain about feeling useless. What do they expect when their personal choices lead to their character feeling useless.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135446I however have experienced powergamers making their fellow players feel short in the pants with their competently made characters and callously ignoring it... only to then get upset when allowances are made for the other players to catch up.

I have also seen the opposite of min-maxers complain they cannot do anything at the table while refusing to accept the consequences of their choices made for the character. It's one thing if poor dice rolls give a player low attributes especially an important attribute for Rogue. It's another to build them in such a way as to make them if not useless than average on anything. Then expect the DM to toss the bone when it gets too rough at the table. I have a run into such a thing thankfully very few times and each I give the player an opportunity to change their mind because I know they will suck at the table and roleplaying can only get one so far. Almost each time the players and myself are told to mind our own business and not tell player XYZ how to build their character. Which again I am fine with it yet at the same time I also give the player fair warning I am not going to go easy on them because of the type of character they made.

If player ABC makes low Str and Con Fighter and wants to be more skilled based yet throws himself into combat and expects to be as good as the player who min maxes the Fighter then he is out of luck. Players at least at my table are responsible for their character choices and I am not going to screw everyone else over because the player was warned ahead of time of the kind of campaign it was going to be and was too stupid and pigheaded to listen to any advice.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135446My sentiments nowadays are powergamers need to read the room and do some self-policing rather than engage in getting one over the table.

Yeah...no players and DMs in general should learn to read the room not just powergamers.

If a player who suffers from a fears of Spiders insists on joining a camapaign where Spider and Drow will be common enemies they will fight at the table they should look elsewhere. If a player is told the campaign is going to be more about combat and less roleplaying and insists on making a skill based character who cannot hit the broadside of a barn it's on the player not the power gamer to fix the problem.

Same thing if players does not like Slavery and tells the DM about it yet decides to have players captured by slavers in the first thing is being a dick.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135449Word. Though, low Strength characters aren't necessarily bad, and you could build some proper "min/maxed" characters with low STR (and probably maxed DEX) depending on the system and options available. The issue is ineffective characters who can't pull their own weight figuratively speaking, cuz they don't have anything (or enough) to complement their role or abilities and allow them to perform at least SOME useful adventuring function as part of the group. So they become dead weight the party has to carry around and not contribute anything.

Again I have no real problems with either or as long as both types of players accept the shortcomings of the characters. It's usually in my experience the player who is the opposite of min-maxer refusing to take responsibilities for their character creation choices and lashing out at the party. The min maxers seem to know that they are good at one or two things and don't blame the other players for not being as good during social situations in a campaign

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135449A "min/maxer" is anyone who doesn't build their character like a complete mongoloid, with spread out skills and stats that are all mediocre or low, at least a couple of knowledge based and/or social skills that are rarely, if ever, going to come up in actual play, and not a single thing they're genuinely good at.

Most of the ones I encountered all seemed to take at least using Pathfinder a few skill ranks in Perception and maybe one rank or two in a Knowledge skill. The opposite of the min-maxer builds a Wizard specializing in Enchantment yet takes a low stats as for Intelligence like  a 10 or 12 then wondering why more often than not the target shrugs it off while blaming the other Wizard who usually has a 16-18 Int at first level that their spells work and calling them a min-maxer.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135446I have never encountered people making deliberately useless characters.

I've encountered them all the time. They just don't know that they're making their characters deliberately useless, but their choices are deliberate and ultimately lead to useless characters nonetheless. They're the people who, for example, want their characters to be good at everything or have extremely complicated builds that would NEVER pay off unless you're playing a point-buy system and the characters are already extremely experienced, so they insist on spreading out ALL their selections (even against the explicit recommendations of people who actually know how to build their characters) and have tiny levels in every single skill they have and not a single truly high attribute, so their character ultimately becomes good at nothing. And even simplistically built non-min/maxed characters that at least focus on one thing to be good at  (even if some of their selections are dubious) significantly outshine them.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135446I however have experienced powergamers making their fellow players feel short in the pants with their competently made characters and callously ignoring it... only to then get upset when allowances are made for the other players to catch up.

My sentiments nowadays are powergamers need to read the room and do some self-policing rather than engage in getting one over the table.

"Powergaming" and "min/maxing" are two different things, but people like to lump them together or use the terms interchangeably, which complicates this type of discussion. One refers to a certain gameplay attitude that is not limited to character building, but extends to the acquisition of treasure, having powerful magical items or even cheating, while the other one refers more specifically to optimizing character builds within a given framework. Powergamers don't necessarily even have to be good at building, they just want the coolest powers and magic items, and if they can get them without meeting any normal ability requirements or such they'll do it. I've played in "powergaming" groups where every long-standing character had some sort of video game inspired cool magic item that was way out of whack with normal power levels in the game.

And "self-policing" only works if we all agree what exactly is "good" or "bad", or what precisely is the breaking point at which other players that don't know how to build their characters effectively start to feel inadequate. And it assumes that this is some sort of objective criteria that is plain for all to see, as opposed to subjective notions that vary widely by individual and only exists in people's heads.

Ah, you play PF! Now I know you're pulling my chain.

Edit: To be clear, I am not calling you liars BUT your experiences are very hard to believe.

For all that, there's always that guy who can have straight 18s and still manage to build a useless character that contributes nothing to the party.  Usually in the name of "roleplaying not rollplaying" boy there's a trope I've had enough of.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135446I have never encountered people making deliberately useless characters.

I have. I've even played a couple myself. It's all dependent on the game and the group goals.

One was a retired shadowrunner who went back to the streets after some shit happened to his life. He was now 58, his body old, skills rusted, but he had to do it regardless. Lots of fun ensued.

Useless characters can produce good stories. :)

Quote from: Itachi;1135462I have. I've even played a couple myself. It's all dependent on the game and the group goals.

One was a retired shadowrunner who went back to the streets after some shit happened to his life. He was now 58, his body old, skills rusted, but he had to do it regardless. Lots of fun ensued.

Useless characters can produce good stories. :)

In the context of the campaign, it wasn't useless. Let me be clear, you guys are trying to convince me that there are people who go in full-tilt deliberately and non-cooperatively throwing in knowingly useless characters against the known parameters of the campaign as some sort of stance and I simply don't buy it. I think there's a lot of revisionist history going on and that's okay if you want to prove a point to someone on the fence but goddamn is that not going to convince me to ignore my own experiences over the last twenty odd years. Powergamers, min-maxers, munchkins, doesn't matter, have, for me, proven themselves to be socially retarded, if not malicious, when not monitored and the proposed anti-thesis of them from a couple of dudes on the internet doesn't change that.

Quote from: Itachi;1135462I have. I've even played a couple myself. It's all dependent on the game and the group goals.

One was a retired shadowrunner who went back to the streets after some shit happened to his life. He was now 58, his body old, skills rusted, but he had to do it regardless. Lots of fun ensued.

Useless characters can produce good stories. :)

Yeah, it depends a lot on what type of game you're running, how important character abilities are in your game and how deep into the story your group is (either by design or by accident). There can be flawed characters that still make themselves likable enough or contribute in their own way, even if they don't have extraordinary abilities. They may stumble into things that stronger characters miss while acting heroic, or perform the most memorable antics in the session that leaves the rest of the group laughing or make things interesting in play. Though, that depends on the player and how the group approaches play, as well as what the campaign is about and how the GM handles things.

In one game I was running one of the weakest characters in the group (a 3e Fighter 1/Mage 2 dark elf, who was level 3 in a level 5 group, and wasn't very good at fighting OR magic) suddenly walked up to an ogre camp while the rest of the group was arguing about strategy when they had already been setup for like half an hour or more of real time, waved at a couple of ogres that saw him, then dropped Darkness on the middle of the camp, and ran like hell. Everyone laughed their ass off. Some in the group thought it was only a joke, but I as the DM ruled that it really happened and the player agreed that's what he wanted to do for sure. The rest of the party had been too busy arguing--both IRL and in character as well (shifting between IC and OOC talk)--to notice. So now the ogre camp was alerted and chaos ensued.

Most of the party was already in position so it didn't mess up their strategy much, but it did force their hand and they lost the element of surprise. Since their original plan was to lure the ogres down a funnel to pick them off more easily it still worked in their favor, but they didn't get the chance to let off a few surprise range attacks first. And the area of Darkness was a double edged sword, cuz it worked against both, the PCs and the enemies, once they moved into the camp. But they ultimately managed to pull through and win out after a tough battle that would've happened an hour later if that character hadn't intervened. :D

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135471I think there's a lot of revisionist history going on and that's okay if you want to prove a point to someone on the fence but goddamn is that not going to convince me to ignore my own experiences over the last twenty odd years. Powergamers, min-maxers, munchkins, doesn't matter, have, for me, proven themselves to be socially retarded, if not malicious, when not monitored and the proposed anti-thesis of them from a couple of dudes on the internet doesn't change that.

Funny how the same thing could be said the other way around. But we're not the ones dismissing what the other side says by making hyperbolic claims about what they're trying to do while failing to address a single point, make a concrete argument or even bothering to draw distinctions. Your argument is simply "This are my ExPeRiEnCeS!" and having unrealistic expectations that the people you lump together simply "police themselves", like saying it should be so gives us concrete guidelines about WTF "self-policing" even entails, and according to who's criteria. Yours? Mine? Some guy on the street? Or the internet?

I generally avoid powergamers and min/maxers by two methods
(a) I often run games with random chargen. Roll the dice and roleplay the results.
(b) I am very specific with my chargen thoughts for point buy games. For instance, Boxing in Palladium gives you extra H2H actions, not more times to shoot guns and I am happy to limit choices of races and classes for the given campaign.

It also helps that I run lots of convention and FLGs game days so all the PCs are my pregens. Over the years, I've also had home groups who gave me their PC concepts and let me handle the chargen.

Quote from: ZetaRidley;1135443Funny thing is I've been working on a rewrite of the system, basically taking the core ideas like Strike, Parry and Dodge and Percentile skills. Basically codifying stuff and making it flow more. So far, its working.

Please start a discussion thread about your Palladium rewrite!

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135447I was always a fan of Microlite Platinum.

Links? I've never heard of it! Love the Microlite stuff.

I've encountered useless players, but never useless characters.

Hand me the most useless character at the table, and I'll play the PC to the hilt and be useful in the game, even if the mechanics of the character are sub-optimal.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135457Ah, you play PF! Now I know you're pulling my chain.

Edit: To be clear, I am not calling you liars BUT your experiences are very hard to believe.

If your going to call myself and others liars have the stones to do so. Seriously "I am not saying your a liar or anything but I don't believe you", is imo the same thing.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135471In the context of the campaign, it wasn't useless. Let me be clear, you guys are trying to convince me that there are people who go in full-tilt deliberately and non-cooperatively throwing in knowingly useless characters against the known parameters of the campaign as some sort of stance and I simply don't buy it. I think there's a lot of revisionist history going on and that's okay if you want to prove a point to someone on the fence but goddamn is that not going to convince me to ignore my own experiences over the last twenty odd years. Powergamers, min-maxers, munchkins, doesn't matter, have, for me, proven themselves to be socially retarded, if not malicious, when not monitored and the proposed anti-thesis of them from a couple of dudes on the internet doesn't change that.

Ah I see it's time for the all powerful carefully constructed personal narrative. Anything and everything that goes against said narrative does not exist. No matter if 5, 10 or 15 people say they have experienced the same thing they are all "liars". Let me clear thankfully my experiences were rare yet it seems that occasionally gamers are struck with this weird impulse to try and do exactly that. Why I do not know. Either because as a DM or player they had a bad experience with a powegamer. Or they hate power gamers and want to show them how it's done with the complete opposite of a powergamer.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135477I've encountered useless players, but never useless characters.

Hand me the most useless character at the table, and I'll play the PC to the hilt and be useful in the game, even if the mechanics of the character are sub-optimal.

That is the difference you accept and acknowledge the characters and flaws and even then make the best of it. Unlike others I have seen who would then complain about it.

I have never seen it IRL but I have heard of Players rocking up to a DnD game with their "Pacifist" characters.

That would get annoying real fast.

Quote from: Shasarak;1135483I have never seen it IRL but I have heard of Players rocking up to a DnD game with their "Pacifist" characters.

That would get annoying real fast.

One of the reasons why I ban ewoks from my Star Wars games is because having a race in a technological setting that is at an automatic disadvantage with technology makes about as much sense as a pacifist fighter. The couple of times that I allowed ewoks before banning them, I'd warn the Player what they were getting into, they'd find their character unable to do most of the things that the other characters could do, and then they would whine that their characters were useless. Not responsible for advice not taken.

Quote from: sureshot;1135481That is the difference you accept and acknowledge the characters and flaws and even then make the best of it. Unlike others I have seen who would then complain about it.

There's no whining at my table.

Or perhaps better put, whining brings these clowns nothing but mockery at my table.

My "online persona" is my offline persona.

Quote from: Shasarak;1135483I have never seen it IRL but I have heard of Players rocking up to a DnD game with their "Pacifist" characters. That would get annoying real fast.

And by annoying, you mean awesome? Because as GM, I'd be laughing my ass off.

Remember what happened to Burke in Aliens when he fled the field of battle? Yeah baby...

Quote from: Shasarak;1135483I have never seen it IRL but I have heard of Players rocking up to a DnD game with their "Pacifist" characters.

That would get annoying real fast.

Tiamat suddenly swoops down from the sky and eats their character!!!

"Yeah, too bad about your character man...."

Quote from: jeff37923;1135492One of the reasons why I ban ewoks from my Star Wars games is because having a race in a technological setting that is at an automatic disadvantage with technology makes about as much sense as a pacifist fighter.

Back when D20 Star Wars came out, I would only play Gungans...because I'm an asshole! So much freaking fun! Then GMs at the local conventions starting banning Gungans because for some unknown reason. :)

I've played an Ewok in D6 Star Wars and they're awesome! He was a psychotic teddy bear cannibal with stealth and cuteness! And he carried a thermal detonator that he'd throw like a rock. Scared the hell out of most enemies when they got clocked and saw a bomb at their feet. Our engineer rigged it so it made sounds and flashes, but couldn't explode. So throwing it back at him just let him clock you with it again!

Quote from: jeff37923;1135492One of the reasons why I ban ewoks from my Star Wars games is because having a race in a technological setting that is at an automatic disadvantage with technology makes about as much sense as a pacifist fighter. The couple of times that I allowed ewoks before banning them, I'd warn the Player what they were getting into, they'd find their character unable to do most of the things that the other characters could do, and then they would whine that their characters were useless. Not responsible for advice not taken.

I want to eventually play one as a master of blowing stuff up as the have the Demolition Skill. The only skill restrictions are Vehicle, Starship and repair Skills. The Bow skill can replace a blaster.

Weird choice to take if they wanted to have access to everything the rest of the players have. The template for Ewoks make them to be experts as scouts.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135497Back when D20 Star Wars came out, I would only play Gungans...because I'm an asshole! So much freaking fun! Then GMs at the local conventions starting banning Gungans because for some unknown reason. :)

Probably because of JarJar and players trying to sound like they do in the movies

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135497I've played an Ewok in D6 Star Wars and they're awesome! He was a psychotic teddy bear cannibal with stealth and cuteness! And he carried a thermal detonator that he'd throw like a rock. Scared the hell out of most enemies when they got clocked and saw a bomb at their feet. Our engineer rigged it so it made sounds and flashes, but couldn't explode. So throwing it back at him just let him clock you with it again!

Seconded they make excellent scouts and being able to use explosvies is an added bonus.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135493And by annoying, you mean awesome? Because as GM, I'd be laughing my ass off.

Speaking of annoying, Players who get their characters to do stupid things in combat like running and hiding because "that is what my character would do".

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135493There's no whining at my table.

Or perhaps better put, whining brings these clowns nothing but mockery at my table.

My "online persona" is my offline persona.

If I do a bad call at the table point it out to me as the person running the game. When a player is warned ahead of time his character choices will make it so they have a bad time during the game, while politely telling me to mond my own business is on them.  

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135493And by annoying, you mean awesome? Because as GM, I'd be laughing my ass off.

Remember what happened to Burke in Aliens when he fled the field of battle? Yeah baby...

I am not out to kill a character I also do not baby the player character either. Another game not my own where the DM allowed a Drow and told the player during session Zero that he would suffer a decent amount of discrimination as the campaign was set in the Forgotten Realms. Instead ignored the DM and expected that all NPCs and the DM would give him a pass on hatred from the Drow because as he put it " Im a good Drow like Drizzt". The DM was going to factor on his reputation ad doing good deeds over time. No the player wanted to be treated like Drizzt and when he was not accused the SM of being a racist as the player was a black person. Yeah so racist when the DM is not only gay he at the time had a black boyfriend.

You can't fix stupid.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135497I've played an Ewok in D6 Star Wars and they're awesome! He was a psychotic teddy bear cannibal with stealth and cuteness! And he carried a thermal detonator that he'd throw like a rock. Scared the hell out of most enemies when they got clocked and saw a bomb at their feet. Our engineer rigged it so it made sounds and flashes, but couldn't explode. So throwing it back at him just let him clock you with it again!

Quote from: sureshot;1135498I want to eventually play one as a master of blowing stuff up as the have the Demolition Skill. The only skill restrictions are Vehicle, Starship and repair Skills. The Bow skill can replace a blaster.

Weird choice to take if they wanted to have access to everything the rest of the players have. The template for Ewoks make them to be experts as scouts.

Seconded they make excellent scouts and being able to use explosvies is an added bonus.

Which really makes sense when the rest of the Players decided at the start of the campaign to be bounty hunters or smugglers or Rebel starfighter pilots.....

Honestly easier to just say, "No ewoks or gungans". Otherwise I end up spending too much time with a special snowflake Player and their character.

ewoks are the kender of star wars.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135509You can't fix stupid.

As recent events have demonstrated, turns out you can't quarantine it, either.

I have a love/hate relationship with power gaming behavior.  When it is the stereotypical scraping every edge of every rules lawyer case and then arguing the case in game--and then trying to twist the same rule another way next time--I hate it.  Yeah, that's bad behavior that is more than just the power gaming, which goes to show that asshole power gaming is just one more way for the asshole to try to wreck things for everyone else.

When the power gamer just gets a deep satisfaction out of tinkering with the mechanics, so much so that they'll happily help any casual player in the room that wants it and happily leave the player alone if they don't--all within the spirit of the rules, then I don't mind it at all. When the power gamer recognizes that they are more interested in this stuff than anyone else at the table so that they channel that instinct by trying to make a difficult to pull off concept work just as well as a normal character?  Or play a character that is deliberately under-powered mechanically but challenge themselves to make it work?  Love those players.  You'll note that their first instinct is to make the game fun for the whole group.

Quote from: sureshot;1135481If your going to call myself and others liars have the stones to do so. Seriously "I am not saying your a liar or anything but I don't believe you", is imo the same thing.

Quote from: sureshot;1135481Anything and everything that goes against said narrative does not exist. No matter if 5, 10 or 15 people say they have experienced the same thing they are all "liars".

No, I'm not going to call you a liar but I will call you a shitbrain and tell you to fuck off when I'm done with your dumb ass. I don't know you personally (besides you being a dumb fuck) but I know a lot of people love to play off hearsay as personal experience or make up bullshit to support their argument so while I didn't call you a liar, based on my experience, I find it hard to believe because it hasn't happened to me. Now, shitbrain, fuck off.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135563No, I'm not going to call you a liar but I will call you a shitbrain and tell you to fuck off when I'm done with your dumb ass. I don't know you personally (besides you being a dumb fuck) but I know a lot of people love to play off hearsay as personal experience or make up bullshit to support their argument so while I didn't call you a liar, based on my experience, I find it hard to believe because it hasn't happened to me. Now, shitbrain, fuck off.

Ah, ad hominem.

The last refuge of those who've already lost the argument.

Or in this case, never had one to begin with. And still don't.

A criticism aimed at myself (and others) when I was a lot younger...

An action that I regret and would never do now days. But I used to argue relentlessly with a GM when i felt they were being unfair.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1135563No, I'm not going to call you a liar but I will call you a shitbrain and tell you to fuck off when I'm done with your dumb ass. I don't know you personally (besides you being a dumb fuck) but I know a lot of people love to play off hearsay as personal experience or make up bullshit to support their argument so while I didn't call you a liar, based on my experience, I find it hard to believe because it hasn't happened to me. Now, shitbrain, fuck off.

So you thought just waltz into the forum and call some of us liars without having the stones to just come out and admit. When that kind of posting gets a negative reaction now your getting all angry and full of piss for being called out on it.

Your not interested in having an actual discussion and just trolling duly noted and you can also fuck off as well.

RPG stuff. :)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1135561As recent events have demonstrated, turns out you can't quarantine it, either.

I have a love/hate relationship with power gaming behavior.  When it is the stereotypical scraping every edge of every rules lawyer case and then arguing the case in game--and then trying to twist the same rule another way next time--I hate it.  Yeah, that's bad behavior that is more than just the power gaming, which goes to show that asshole power gaming is just one more way for the asshole to try to wreck things for everyone else.

When the power gamer just gets a deep satisfaction out of tinkering with the mechanics, so much so that they'll happily help any casual player in the room that wants it and happily leave the player alone if they don't--all within the spirit of the rules, then I don't mind it at all. When the power gamer recognizes that they are more interested in this stuff than anyone else at the table so that they channel that instinct by trying to make a difficult to pull off concept work just as well as a normal character?  Or play a character that is deliberately under-powered mechanically but challenge themselves to make it work?  Love those players.  You'll note that their first instinct is to make the game fun for the whole group.

This.

System Mastery is knowledge.  Like all knowledge it can be used to help others and have fun or can be used to make yourself into a shit-eating fucktwaddle that no one wants to be around.

I wonder if the Powergamer problem people are pointing out isn't just a matter of egotism and a lack of group awereness/sentiment? I've played with some players who would ferociously try to steer the game to their own goals and agenda, convincing the group at all costs to their ideas and even fighting if needed. Or the player who wants the spotlight at all times to do whatever he wants without minding that there may be others in the table who are having little time on the screen because of that. People who lack a sense for the threshold when their drives become disruptive to the game.

In other words: the kind of people that would be a problem no matter the activity. The ball hog in the weekly basketball game that pisses off friends, the obtuse colleague in a bar table who thinks his opinion is the absolute truth and tries to convince everybody of it, etc

Because, as Mitchel pointed above, there are powergamers who manage to contribute positively to the group with interesting characters and atitutes that do not disrupt games.

One of the worst power gamers and min/maxers I've seen was one of the best players I've had.  Still, I liked that Rolemaster Standard System made rules arguments pretty cut and dried.

power gaming was, in older editions, trying to max ability scores and attack bonuses, rarely goofy tricks like magic item combinations. Starting in 3e though it began to become something else. Now it was players demanding the use of poorly worded spell and power descriptions with no regard to internal versimilitude, treating it like glitching in a vidya game; stacking contortion bonues to sneak into, literally, an opponents butthole and kill them from the inside, arguing for such with a straight face, demanding they can multiclass dipping into thisthat'n'theother to make a "build" (this word is blasphemy) with utterly broken results. Then they had the temerity, the audacity even, to declare that the game was broken if you let them do this, first the claim you are not playing the game right if you don't let them, then if you do the game is broken and is shit so we should play my lil pony erp adventures instead. i hate these people. i would genocide them. i will genocide them. gotham both needs and deserves such.

You missed out on Skills and Powers.  That made 3e look like childs play for power gaming.

Quote from: Shasarak;1135787You missed out on Skills and Powers.  That made 3e look like childs play for power gaming.

Skills & Powers, plus my own house rules and a bunch of other options from kits and all those "Complete X(Class or Race) Handbooks" that were floating around at the time, was the thing that clued me into the fact that if you allowed a bunch of options and cool powerz without proper constraints or giving enemies similar benefits you would completely break and trivialize the game. I still liked them, though (at least in concept), cuz they allowed a lot of cool options and flexibility that I was looking for at the time. But Skill & Powers in particular was poorly balanced, with badly configured ability costs that allowed some broken or really crappy selections, creating lots of power disparities in the game.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1135605A criticism aimed at myself (and others) when I was a lot younger...

An action that I regret and would never do now days. But I used to argue relentlessly with a GM when i felt they were being unfair.

Depending on how you address the problem, arguing when you feel wronged can be positive IMO. But you must be ready to cave in and let the GM have their way anyway (even if that means never showing up at their table again).

Quote from: Shasarak;1135787You missed out on Skills and Powers.  That made 3e look like childs play for power gaming.

Old school gamers lament 3e as the point that D&D started to rot... but in reality, it was the introduction of Skills and Powers.

as i recall skills & powers was optional, labeled as "players option" in fact; and most treated it as such, whereas in 3e you met the new age gamers that insisted a broken interpretation of poorly written raw be used or you were railroading or houseruling them, then further insisted the whole game was trash because you let them do it. This phenomenon was not existent to my knowledge in 2e even if S&P was used.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1135973as i recall skills & powers was optional, labeled as "players option" in fact; and most treated it as such, whereas in 3e you met the new age gamers that insisted a broken interpretation of poorly written raw be used or you were railroading or houseruling them, then further insisted the whole game was trash because you let them do it. This phenomenon was not existent to my knowledge in 2e even if S&P was used.

The term "optional" was really code for "if you are hard enough"

I've got another one. I'm really burned out running games for players who don't set goals for their characters and just turn up and wait for the adventure to happen.

I use the example Conan strangled the king of Aquilonia on the steps of his own throne and took his kingdom, but people still don't grasp the idea even if I say explicitly "You have to set some goals for your character"

Quote from: Altheus;1136422I've got another one. I'm really burned out running games for players who don't set goals for their characters and just turn up and wait for the adventure to happen.

I use the example Conan strangled the king of Aquilonia on the steps of his own throne and took his kingdom, but people still don't grasp the idea even if I say explicitly "You have to set some goals for your character"

Yeah, I hear you. But then some games/styles kinda ask for that passivity, I guess.

I had an experience with the Players Option books. And it became clear to me, that if I wanted a game with that kind of added complexity, I would still be playing Rolemaster.

The Skills and Powers book to me utterly ruined AD&D 2nd Edition. Turned it into an inaccessible mess I just didn't want to play anymore.

Every book that Wizards puts out under the Players Option banner makes me simply not want to buy it. Because of the wretched legacy of that line.