Over the years I've (literally) digested hundreds of RPGs.  During all this play/read time I've definitely discovered things that I like and don't like.  I've also discovered things that are an immediate turn –off to the point where I won't even give the game a chance...because I know I won't like it.

For example, if a game has "hit locations" I automatically put it down.  I'm also very turned off by games that try to use artsy fartsy terms to describe character attributes (It's frigging Strength!).  Wound systems aren't a deal breaker for me, but I'm very fond of less concentration straining "Hit point" type systems.  The list goes on and on.

I'm at a point now where my criteria are so tight that I'm finding there is actually very little (new games) I like anymore.  Anyone else suffer from the same problem?

P.S. There are really only 2 flawless games for me, Star Frontiers and Basic D&D (go figure)

I'm usually on extremely limited budget, and what I want in an RPG tends to change as I get older.  So I'd say my criteria to pick up a game is pretty fluid, and since I'm on a budget, it had better be pretty close to what I'm looking for in a game for me to pick it up--I don't have a lot of disposable income to go trial-and-error too much anymore.

No, I'd say that at the level of techniques my criteria have become much broader. Whether a game has hit points or whatever doesn't matter anywhere near as much as the overall direction.

Hmm.  I'm not sure.

I generally prefer games with fudge point mechanics.  I like combat to simulate things blow by blow, rather than abstractly.  And I prefer active defenses where the attacker strikes and then the defender can roll for defense, or to at least simulate the defenses in some way rather than the classic "AC" method.

I prefer skill systems where I'm not confined into specific developmental patters.  I definitely feel that roll high is superior to roll under.

I'll give any game about mecha at least a chance.

Broader in some ways, narrower in others.

I don't care, so much, whether the game does things in a certain way (hit locations, for instance).

I do care, increasingly, that the game will play well as a game.  I find it (more and more) hard to get excited about games like Vampire, Everway and (hate to say it, but it's true) Amber, because the mechanics simply aren't a complete game of any sort.  They require you to constantly and consciously be subordinating the game to the roleplaying, rather than having them support and enhance each other.

Which, of course, is not to say that running those systems in that way is not a barrel of fun, and valuable roleplay, and all that jazz.  It's just not to my tastes any more.  It's not the kind of effort I want to put into the games I play.  So I stick with games where when I play them cold-heartedly as a game I'm lead to good roleplaying, and when I roleplay well it leads me to winning strategies in the game.

Quote from: grubmanOver the years I’ve (literally) digested hundreds of RPGs.  During all this play/read time I’ve definitely discovered things that I like and don’t like.  I’ve also discovered things that are an immediate turn –off to the point where I won’t even give the game a chance…because I know I won’t like it.

For example, if a game has “hit locations” I automatically put it down.  I’m also very turned off by games that try to use artsy fartsy terms to describe character attributes (It’s frigging Strength!).  Wound systems aren’t a deal breaker for me, but I’m very fond of less concentration straining “Hit point” type systems.  The list goes on and on.

I’m at a point now where my criteria are so tight that I’m finding there is actually very little (new games) I like anymore.  Anyone else suffer from the same problem?

I find that as age and senility set in I'm inclined to buying simpler RPG systems.Mind you I've always disliked hit location rules, which seem to unnecessarily slow down combat to a crawl.
I also gag when I peruse an RPG and it seems flowery and pretentious (anything where the GM has to refer to himself as "The Hollyhock God" or where the moon is melancholy because it was rejected by the sun, etc).
By the way basic D&D and Star Frontiers are two games that I'd love to see being played nowadays.:cool:

I have to admit I'm one of those collector types. Even if I don't want to play the game, if it has something that piques my curiosity or tickles my imagination in some way, I might just buy it. My shelves are full of books that I may not have played, but had art/setting/rules that intrigued me.

Quote from: JamesVI have to admit I'm one of those collector types. Even if I don't want to play the game, if it has something that piques my curiosity or tickles my imagination in some way, I might just buy it. My shelves are full of books that I may not have played, but had art/setting/rules that intrigued me.

Sounds like me! Only I wanna play 'em too. I don't always get the chance to, but I've got a lot of chances around here to try. We do a lot of one-shots 'round my town, plus I like running games at Cons too.  

The main criteria for me to buy a game is setting and genre. If I like the setting or genre of a particular game, if it gets my imagination flowing, or if I just say "Whoa cool!" then I'll probably buy it.

PS - welcome back grubman!

I'll play any RPG once, although if it involves being a bored housewife or something like that I won't play it around my friends.

I don't have much of a criteria. If the game looks like something I would like , I'd probably buy it. I'm easy

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Anthrobot(anything where the GM has to refer to himself as "The Hollyhock God" or where the moon is melancholy because it was rejected by the sun, etc)

Well... In Nobilis, the Moon is suicidal because she cannot forget how the Sun once murdered all her children, and she would plunge down into the oceans of the Earth if she hadn't a veil which for a little while at a time drains away the memories of the tragedy. For an instant scenario, have someone steal the veil: can the PCs recover it before the otherwise inevitable ELE wipes out the human species?

Personally, I have a low tolerance for heavy crunch and all systems in which resolving an action might halt the flow of the session for more than an instant, and I like the mechanics to fade into the background during play. Apart from that, there really isn't any kind of an RPG that I wouldn't be willing to at least try out.

I tend to lean against generic systems.  Especially generic systems that claim to be tied to a setting, although I can forgive that for an awesome setting.

I'll play anything once, although GMless is outside my comfort zone by a fair margin.

I'll try darn near any RPG once, but nowadays I generally only buy retro stupid stuff.

"The big hole in my theory is that black area in the chart where Retro Stupid Pretention is found.  That ought to be the most totally rad place in the universe, but right at this moment the only game I can think of that definitely goes there is World of Synnibarr."   :win:

I don't want to be assailed by execessive jargon and I want to be able to clearly tell what the game is about from the get-go. For exemple, White Wolf games like Promethean fail to meet both criteria.

I also hate it when the author of the book can't seem to be able to apply his own rules properly, especially when the exemples given don't match the rules as written. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but once doubt sinks in it usually gnaws at me and makes me lose interest in the game.

Of course, I can forgive any flaws if the game as a whole is completely awesome. But in order for me to find out if the game is awesome, it has to grab me first. Nowadays, a game has approximately 15 pages to grab me and keep me interested. There are too many games out there for me to waste time reading one that doesn't sell itself from the get-go.