Whats the best thing about a game you don’t like

And what is the worst thing about a game you love?

Best Thing: Lots of PBTA games have settings that seem like they would be great fun to play games in. A multitude of post-Apocalyspes, High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, Sci Fi etc etc.

Not just genres, but actual named and organized places.

Worst Thing: The Sanity mechanic in Call of Cthulhu is clunky and, the majority of the time, it really only gets acted upon RP-wise when the number starts to get really low. There’s also a swingyness to it that makes sense, I guess, but doesn’t feel too good.

The inflexibility of spellcasting in D&D / Pathfinder. I know that PF 2e have the option og using more actions to empower your spell, and both D&D 5e and PF both have metamagics, but I wish for some more improvised magics

The worst thing about Smallville RPG is the Trouble Pool. I get what it's there for and I don't hate it but I kind of wish it was different.

The best thing about Cypher is how character creation gives you a neat, snappy description that you can give for your character. It's not really a unique thing but the specific way they do it by with their "An X Y who Z" is pretty cool

Best Thing: I dislike 5e but like how popular it has made the hobby. If only more of the players it brought in would try new games...

Worst Thing: I love many games except for the actual dice/resolution mechanics, which limits the games I want to play lol I'm looking at you Eclipse Phase, Through the Breach, and Free League games). But if I have to choose something more specific, CoC's combat. For a game that shouldn't be combat heavy, the combat mechanics are very cumbersome and clunky.

Best thing about a game I hate: The entire premise of Scion: Hero, squandered by the one of the worst systems out there.

Worst thing about a game I like: resolving all the symbols to end up with the result in Genesys. I also feel the math isn't quite solid under there.
so true!

I dunno about hate, but...

Best Things in Games Not For Me: The dice mechanics from Cortex, Burning Wheel, and traditional PbtA games. The level of research and detail that goes into a GURPS sourcebook. Lovecraftian horror in CoC. The look and feel and vibe of Torchbearer.

Worst Thing in Games I Dig: Metacurrency in Fate. 3d6 down the line in Black Hack-derived / roll-under OSR games.

And agree on the Cypher thing... I think the main reason I don't dig those games is that I thought the "A X Y who Zs" piece was like a Fate aspect -- open-ended, not from a picklist. Big turnoff for me.

Last note for those lamenting CoC -- there are other games out there to look at that can provide smoother experiences. Like lots of other games. Favorites of mine include Rats in the Walls, Eldritch Tales, Cthulhu Dark, and The Cthulhu Hack.

Best Thing About A Game I Don't Like: Mouseguard, I love the setting and the evocation of mice level problems. Everything about the game just draws you into those characters and their drama. Even the skill names just feel right. I would actually like the game system itself if only the teamwork/combat mechanic wasn't so heavy in Harrigan transactions.

Worst Thing About A Game I Love: Star wars FFG. I really like the ideas in the game, but the Advantage/Threat mechanic of the narrative dice feels like it gets in the way. Contrary to my expectations, the action just full-stops whenever you try and puzzle out how to interpret the results. I'd ten times prefer an optional side roll than just an open ended interpretive result.

Yeah this. I think the narrative dice are really cool for in person games and where you roll less often. Interpreting results starts to take exponentially more time the more often you roll. A GM has to be really good about when rolls are actually needed and when not to, and they also have to be good at improv since you're dealing with 4 axes of resolution instead of 2. It's a very hit or miss system with me.

I've briefly played in a genesys game on here and the dice didn't really click with me there. I think they might be much better in person than for pbp. Or maybe I just needed to roll them a few more times before they'd start making sense 😄

For weird symbol dice, I really liked the ones from L5R (whichever edition it is that has the weird dice). The setting didn't super click with me but I loved the dice system

Haha! That's actually my favorite part of the system. Even in PbP. It's basically improv fuel. But you have to have players who are willing to roll with the improvisation side of things, and (especially in PbP), players who are proactive in suggesting uses for symbols. (That said, Nezzeraj is actually in a Star Wars game of mine—same system—and has justly accused me of calling for rolls too often there. ;P)

The thing I actually dislike about Genesys/Star Wars is not the multi-axis dice resolution (love, love, love it), but the default way the games handle money. Both Star Wars and Genesys default to bean-counting. Buy an axe? That'll be 50 currency. Stay in an inn? That's 10 currency. Whatever. If you're playing cash-strapped smugglers or something, that make senses, but I tend to hand wave such nickel-and-diming in most of my games, especially if the focus is on other stuff (like mystery solving, or empire building, or whatever).

Something I admire in a game I otherwise dislike? Len ran a game of Troika here a couple months back. The system was fairly inelegant—sometimes you're supposed to roll high, other times low, etc. But I loved the way the game used random tables for character generation in a way that truly sparked your imagination to make a really memorable character. We all ended up with some off-the-wall character concepts, and roleplaying them out under the direction of our amazing GM was lots of fun.

I also really liked the dice of FFG's edition of L5R, but was meh on the setting. I also loved the art. I bought a couple of the books just because I like the art. I've been thinking about filling off the serial numbers and making my own setting with that system at some point.

What is a Harrigan transaction? I'm not familiar with that phrase and Google has failed me.

Term popularized by Harrigan in this video (but he didn't name it after himself!)



It represents the back-and-forth between a GM and player to achieve a goal. In PbP the goal is to reduce the transactions.

e.g.
Player: I look for traps
GM: Roll perception
Player: 14
GM: You don't find any traps.

vs

Player: I look for traps
GM: (rolls dice for player - gets 14) You don't find any traps.

Thank you very much. That is an insight I had not considered before.

The Harrigan principle is great, but my issue with it is that it robs the player of one of the joys of roleplaying games, the dice rolling. To that end, I've adopted a similar idea that I first saw Emsquared propose. Namely, you deputize your players to put on their GM hats and guess at difficulties and the like rather than wait for you as GM to set them. In the above example, it might look like this:

Player: I look for traps. Here's my Perception check. 14.
GM: You don't find any traps.

In a system with GM-set difficulties, it might look like this:

Player: I look for traps. From what you've described, this is a small but cluttered room, so I'll make a Hard check. Success with 2 advantages. If this stands, I'll use the advantages to impress the noble we're escorting.

GM: Perfect. You don't find any traps, but Lord Fontleroy is very impressed by your speed and efficiency.

In other words, trust the players to do some of the GM-work for you. Worst-case scenario, the GM adjusts the roll if the player severely under- or overestimated the difficulty or modifiers. I've had mixed results getting players to do this, as I think many are reluctant to step on perceived GM toes. But I do think it's potentially the best of both worlds.

Sure. I was using it as an example of reducing back and forth. Discussion of how to do this should be a whole new thread.

I love D&D 5e. One thing I dislike about it is crafting item rules are very boring. Crafting your own weapon or suit of armor or staff should be a storied and meaningful process.

I love the Cypher System. One thing I dislike about it is the abstract wealth system. It's probably just my inexperience with it, but I prefer resources with tangible numbers that I can add up.

I love Traveller. One thing I dislike about Traveller is the reaction system in combat. You can react on anyone's turn as much as you like, but you get worse and worse doing things the more actions you take. It can be very clunky for new players or in PbP. There are house rules to get around it.

I don't love Palladium's Rifts. But some parts of the setting are interesting and a place to tell compelling stories.

So why don't you just roleplay it? Come up with a plan, a story arc, whatever, with the GM and/or other players. What are rules going to provide that roleplay wouldn't?

The mechanics that govern group dynamics in PbtA games just bug me. However, by contrast, I love that there's a way to create obligations on other characters. "Remember that time I bailed you out? I'm calling that debt. Here, take this bullet." (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

Speaking of PbtA, I love Apocalypse World but hate the sex moves. Just...why? I always take those out.

Just to be clear -- and Adam already said this but since my name is attached to it, I'd like to be extra clear -- this is no "Harrigan Principle," let alone one that recommends you take rolling away from the players to cut down transactions been the player and the GM. My point was that some systems are really good at this, out of the box -- many of my favorite games to GM in PbP have mostly or exclusively player-facing rolls, often roll under. Super easy for the GM to call for a roll / test, or for the player to be proactive and roll it in advance. I can drone on about this at length, but yeah, new thread needed.

It's old school mechanics. Back then, you did not roll to find traps, the GM rolled for you. The principle was, if you had a bad roll and the GM told you there were no traps, you might be tempted tho think you simply had failed to find them. Similarly, if you rolled really good and the GM told you there were no traps, you were now 100% sure there were no traps.
I guess the point is, when you search for traps, you should never be sure either way...

I completely agree. I like the idea - of driving stories that are complex and interesting. But, even when by myself, sex scenes in movies make me feel awkward.

Rifts mechanics and rule organization is all out of wack. But I love the lore and artwork.

The Apocalypse World Sex Moves do not try to emulate, simulate, or mechanise 'sex', they represent and mechanise the consequences of sex, i.e. they only deal with what comes after, not the act. Most people fade to black, then pick up afterwards with what it meant, not how it went.

Apocalypse World Burned Over leaves out those moves, if you want a version without them.

Another good example could be Urban Shadows, which changed the Sex Move to Intimacy Move. The intimacy moment does not have to be physical (and even a physical intimacy moment does not have to be sex: for example a Vamp feeding), it can be emotional instead.

Yeah, AW tried to do that by calling them 'Special Moves' and not 'Sex Moves', but only the Child Thing deviated from them being about sex.

Just a gentle reminder here:

As I understand it the intent of this thread is to express your like or dislike for specific aspects of certain rulesets. It is NOT intended to persuade others to like or dislike the same things as you, nor criticize their preferences.

Also, someone stating their dislike for something does NOT mean that they are unable nor unwilling to find a workaround. That's a separate discussion altogether and not the point of this thread.

I generally dislike the dice system AW/PbtA uses, and therefore I generally dislike that rpg line. But I absolutely never run a game in any system now without constructing Fronts for it. Fronts/Fundamental Scarcity/Impending Dooms are just brilliant ways to structure plot in a way that allows for flexible storytelling.

Least favorite thing from my favorite system - FFG Star Wars - are the abundant "remove Setback" Talents (basically "trap" choices), particularly when paired with the rigid "Talent Tree" format... Luckily Genesys fixed both of those things!

Best thing about my least favorite system (Pathfinder) is the archetypes that let you sideload a set of abilities into a class that they wouldn't normally have. Halfway between 3.5 and 4e's multiclasssing, it's a really great idea. Unfortunately, Pathfinder's overall lack of balance ended up making a good number of them either vastly underperforming even though they were interesting (Time Thief for rogue) or so strong that they became a problem to GM (Synthesist for Summoner), but the core idea was solid and I'd like to see it more often.

Worst thing about my favorite system (13th Age) is that two classes (Barbarian and Ranger) are too simple. They're intended to be the simplest of classes, and I like that the classes are all just as powerful while still being asymetric when it comes to complexity, but I just feel like these two classes are a bit too straightforward. You do one thing in combat over and over again and they're just not fun for me. Still, that's why very angry fighters and druids exist, I suppose!

Is this first or second edition of pathfinder?

I play only 5e, so I suppose it's both my favourite and least favourite system.

The thing I like least is the time to build a character sheet. It takes SO long for new players, and once it's done much of it is never used. It's mainly all that skill and tool proficiency nonsense where the time is lost (because if you picked a spellcaster, then you have only yourself to blame).

The thing is, there is a variant rule, a better rule, in the DMG.
There's more in the DMG about this rule and how to use it. I like this variant, but it depends on trust between the players and DM. But even if you're not playing with this rule, it's a good tool for DMs and players to sneak in.

There it is. One of my least favourite things in 5e. I find the vanilla skill rules overly complex, lack subtlety, and the variant rule works better in the narrative environment of PbP.

Oh yeah. And Healing Word. That sucks.

I consider myself a big advocate of the DMG whereas some ppl dismiss the book as expendable, has a number of optional things in it that I like to use in about any game... but I've never noticed this optional rule.

Pretty cool.

First.

This is one of the things they grabbed from 13th Age. It's a nice option, and for me, makes more sense than just having ranks in a skill.

I like 5E, just not the stigma of politics that surrounds it. I like that it is modular, and that Hardcore mode made it a grittier game.

Favorite game is Mythras, the only thing I don't like is how long the learning curve is to learn to make optimal characters for their professions.

I cannot overstate the elegance of the system compared to all other d100 and 99% of d20 games - at least in my opinion. Some folks don't or won't play D100 games. Too bad.

Best thing about a game I don't like: 5e has brought in many new players and reignited the passions of many for D&D.

Worst thing about a game I love: 2e limiting Weapon Specialization to only Single Classed Fighters. Never understood that.

Best Thing About a Game I Don't Like: The simple elegance that is the advantage/disadvantage mechanic in 5E. It isn't really fair to say that I don't like 5E, as I both run and play it. I just don't care for the fact that it makes PCs nearly unbeatable. Anyone capable of using (who owns, of course) a wand of polymorph can take out a tarrasque. There's something inherently wrong with that. One of my players killed a nalfeshnee by dropping conjured warhorses on it from a height of 200 ft.

Worst Thing About a Game I Love: I dislike the Golarion setting for Pathfinder because it is so ingrained into the rules for such that it's a pain to adapt a different (or original) setting.

I feel similarly pained over 5e’s beefy heroes! I want there to be danger and risk. Not hopeless drudgery, mind. But genuine adventure.

I have heard similar things about the Glorantha (?) setting got Runequest. So much so that people suggest the No Brand Mythras instead if you want the rules and not the setting, such is the level of them being intwined.

Hârn is the same way. It's nearly impossible to extract the rules from the setting. Or change them much without having to iron out all the ripple-effect changes that would occur. Shame, really. It's a good -if super crunchy- system.

Totally agrees with you here

I am the exact opposite on both of these haha. Advantage/disadvantage is so binary and it's used for everything. What if two or more abilities give you advantage? Then it's a waste. What if you roll low on both or high on both? Shadow of the Demon Lord uses a much better system where you get to roll d6s to either add or subtract depending on advantage or disadvantage, but you can only keep 1. This lets you get multiple "advantages" and increases your odds of getting a high number, but only using one still keeps a limit on balance and retains usefulness.

As for Golarion, it's my favorite fantasy setting haha. The only 5e game I'm playing now I joined because it's in Golarion (and I wanted to really give 5e a chance).