As the Topic says :

Lets hear what games you have a beef against and Why.

But lets not start agrueing the WHY and how people word how they have a beef with a system or game OK.

You have to Answer OK before you can replay.

-------------------
-------------------

OK

My Biggest beef is against systems that use levels and skills connected to those Levels.
My other beef is against d20 in general due to the LOCAL Players I have meet in the area. Not really the system itself but against the people That play must always play only that system and how they play there games.

Why ?

Why. Not sure, but might have something to do with playing RIFTS and D&D3e and the general players I meet and how they gamed in general. Mini-maxing skills, classes, and what not. I want Character driven characters not just numbers and stats. If I just made any sense, cool. if not, oh well.



NEXT

You can say that I have a beef with Vampire, but it's really just that I find thenotion of playing a vampire to be distasteful.

The only game I ever had a beef against was Chart...errr...Rolemaster, only for a)  it was the only way to play Middle Earth for a while without constructing your own game, b)  a bunch of guys I gamed with loved and and wanted to play it constantly, while a few others of us hated it, and didn't want to, but we got dragged along anyway.

After a while, there was no beef, cause we stopped playing it.

Most Palladium stuff I dislike, for being an AD&D rip off with a poorly designed level system.  And RIFTS...ugh.  I enjoy a lot of the concepts, but loathe the actual execution.  That said, some of the most fun gaming I ever had was TMNT in junior high - gonzo power gaming to the max!  Fun times.  Ninja gerbils, psionic chickens, and my favorite was the ninja elephant - an elephant sneaks up and stabs you in the back before you see him.  AN ELEPHANT!  How much fun is that?

Savage Worlds. The game itself is not bad per se - it's pretty much average, with a heavy emphasis on the cinematic. But the goddamn fans adamantly recommend it for everything and get hostile if you point out truths/flaws about the game.

Seanchai

Weapons of the Gods.  It's a fun game, I like the world, but the book itself is a nightmare to navigate.  The rules for medicine and magic are far too integrated into the surrounding text and are difficult to take in.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralNinja gerbils, psionic chickens, and my favorite was the ninja elephant - an elephant sneaks up and stabs you in the back before you see him.  AN ELEPHANT!  How much fun is that?

This is why TMNT transcends normal games and becomes something amazing. Ninja Elephants are just... brilliant!

-clash

I have a big beef with WFRP.  Great system and setting for what it is...but much like Seanchai (who I totally disagree with, by the way ), the fans drive me NUTS by being so frigging arrogant (I think hardcore WFRP fans are some of the most arrogant out there when it comes to pimping their system) and recommending it for everything fantasy and constantly bashing every other fantasy system out there (especially D&D, which is much more versatile.  You can play Warhammeresque adventures with D&D, but, it's near impossible to play D&Desque adventures with WFRP).

Other than that, I have things I like or dislike about most systems...but those are just the opposite for others...so (I try to) live and let live.

(oh...I had a (bizzare personal)beef with Basic Fantasy...but it wasn't worth the effort )

I have a beef with Vampire, in that the proposed activity (a certain flavor of collaborative story-making) isn't quite the same as what you actually get if you follow the written instructions on how to play.  It's not a huge beef, since I can adjust the advice and the rules both to my satisfaction, but it's there.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI have a beef with Vampire, in that the proposed activity (a certain flavor of collaborative story-making) isn't quite the same as what you actually get if you follow the written instructions on how to play.  It's not a huge beef, since I can adjust the advice and the rules both to my satisfaction, but it's there.

Do you mean Fluff text not matching the mechanics of play ?
If so, I can agree. Vampire's fictions and fluff say you can do this, this and that. Then when you use the mechanics of the system, if you try to match the fluff your out of blood or frenzing out of hunger, among other things.

I have a beef with because .

No, seriously, Vampire is about as iffy as I get.

Quote from: LacrioxusDo you mean Fluff text not matching the mechanics of play ?
If so, I can agree. Vampire's fictions and fluff say you can do this, this and that. Then when you use the mechanics of the system, if you try to match the fluff your out of blood or frenzing out of hunger, among other things.

The world fluff, yes.  The "player fluff", as well, where it babbles about the magnificent stories you'll be a part of - and gives you a sense of how you would be part of those, which it then shitcans with the GM advice.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe world fluff, yes.  The "player fluff", as well, where it babbles about the magnificent stories you'll be a part of - and gives you a sense of how you would be part of those, which it then shitcans with the GM advice.

Wow, really?  How so?

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Wow, really?  How so?

To sum up: Many of the player notes on play talk about making decisions.  Then, the GM section then has a significant number of techniques that effectively talk about cleverly making those choices unimportant, because the plot continues regardless.

It's gotten much, much less prevalent in the current edition, mind you, so I should probably bury the grudge at this point.  And I'm not going to pretend that it's unique to Vampire - there were a few D&D modules, back in the day, that shared similar asshattery.

Most theory people use a lot of neologisms when talking about all this, which annoy the fuck out of regular readers.  But, basically, when the people on either side of the table are led to expect notably different kinds of play, that pisses me off.

Quote from: grubmanI have a big beef with WFRP.  Great system and setting for what it is...but much like Seanchai (who I totally disagree with, by the way ), the fans drive me NUTS by being so frigging arrogant (I think hardcore WFRP fans are some of the most arrogant out there when it comes to pimping their system) and recommending it for everything fantasy and constantly bashing every other fantasy system out there (especially D&D, which is much more versatile.  You can play Warhammeresque adventures with D&D, but, it's near impossible to play D&Desque adventures with WFRP).

Other than that, I have things I like or dislike about most systems...but those are just the opposite for others...so (I try to) live and let live.

Yeah, I love WFRP, play it regularly, etc. but I've noticed a tremendously high volume of swinedom in WFRP's fandom. Its the fault of this group of dudes who basically hijacked what was meant to be a really rough-and-mean punk-dwarf fighting-in-the-dungeon D&D-but-deadlier game, and because of the success of the Enemy Within campaign tried to turn WFRP into a pure "investigative" campaign where you're not actually supposed to EVER fight monsters, go into dungeons, or get treasure.  And they tied that in with a very big sense of intellectual superiority to D&D. Its very unfortunate.

The good news, however, and the reason you shouldn't give up on the game, is that pretty much everyone who has gotten into WFRP from the new edition (plus some of the people who have now come back to it) do not fit this description: "Enemy Within" means nothing to them, and they see the awesome potential of WFRP for exactly what it is, without thinking it has to be a "sophisticated storytelling" game, or that its the panacea for all one's fantasy gaming needs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: grubmanYou can play Warhammeresque adventures with D&D, but, it's near impossible to play D&Desque adventures with WFRP).

Why would you want to emulate DnD?