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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Background Proficiency
With this variant rule, characters don’t have skill or tool proficiencies... Instead, a character can add his or her proficiency bonus to any ability check to which the character’s prior training and experience (reflected in the character’s background) reasonably applies. The DM is the ultimate judge of whether the character’s background applies.

For example, the player of a character with the noble background could reasonably argue that the proficiency bonus should apply to a Charisma check the character makes to secure an audience with the king....

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 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.

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.