Things you just don't like in your fantasy RPGs


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Nepherti wrote:
Entriesshadow, I'm talking about how her arms and legs are covered in thick padding but her torso is exposed. It has nothing to do with her being a barbarian.

That makes sense. I withdraw my complaint.

Grey Lensmen wrote:
Cheesecake (and beefcake for the ladies' enjoyment) has a place in fantasy art. It's when all of a game's art fits this that there is a problem

I actually don't have a problem with either of those things, no matter how much it is used. My problem is when it is contrary to the story being told. I accept a succubus or a nymph being suggestive because it makes sense. I will defend that art direction to anybody who would complain about them being demeaning or sexist. But then you get things like this. Nothing about this image makes any sense. That woman is going to die very soon. It's so horrendous it's almost a parody.

Seoni's character doesn't really lend herself to being a sex pot. There's nothing in the back story or characterization that called for it, but they put her in a slit dress with maximum cleavage simply for the sake of having it. It feels contrived specifically to appeal to adolescent boys. (Don't even get me started on DC's New 52 run. Ugh.) That bothers me.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Leo_Negri wrote:
Comedy races? Needed, one simply can't be grim all the time without winding up with a blade at your own wrists if you're not careful.
Personally, I think the needed levity in any game or story can easily be provided without resorting to a character that is nothing more than a walking punchline.

Yes, but races that can be played for comedy easily, are not necessarily a "walking punchline." That is more of a play of the players than the characters. I've personally played tinker gnomes (and I played then straight, not for laughs, they really believed that their inventions litterally needed all the crap they piled on them, and couldn't see why others couldn't understand that necessity.) I have also played kender that were not hyper-spastic, gully dwarfs that were bitter homeless folk, and Giff that were stiff and military but not complete gun-bunnies. It's all in how the character is played. (Incidentally, in all three cases other than the gnome, I had at least one other player tell me I was "playing the race wrong.")


EntrerisShadow wrote:


Seoni's character doesn't really lend herself to being a sex pot. There's nothing in the back story or characterization that called for it, but they put her in a slit dress with maximum cleavage simply for the sake of having it. It feels contrived specifically to appeal to adolescent boys. (Don't even get me started on DC's New 52 run. Ugh.) That bothers me.

Brief sideline -

My curiousity is aroused by your not to get you started on DC's New 52 run, but what exactly is contrived specifically to appeal to adolescent boys? I read a fairly diverse selection from the New 52 and I have yet to find that to be case in any book I didn't expect it in (I however only read a little over a quarter of the books so I'm not sure how it plays out in the others).

Apologies for the threadjacking.

Grand Lodge

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
I hate helmets on anyone not wearing full plate.

What about the Normans or Templars? They pretty much set the standard for wearing chain with helmets...

Just sayin'...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ret Cons
Idiot Marketing people making campaign development decisions.

-TimD


Digitalelf wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
I hate helmets on anyone not wearing full plate.

What about the Normans or Templars? They pretty much set the standard for wearing chain with helmets...

Just sayin'...

And how about vikings? My crew would like to know.


Dinosaurs are fine, I think... so long as you don't call them their sodding latin names. Every other monster gets a cool, evocative name like choker!, gorgon!, campestri!... but dinos get pachycephalosaurus and brachiosaurus. Don't get me started on Utahraptor.

Now, people relate to this stuff because those names are known. Putting new names is harder and risks not sticking. Given this, you need to work these monsters into the setting, same as all the other monsters. Still, I don't know if thickhead lizard, arm lizard and Utah bird will help much... It's a problem.

I still think it's the names. And I don't mind dinos in my fantasy.


Gendo wrote:
Drejk wrote:

What I dislike in my fantasy?

Elves being taller than human.

So Tolkien's treatment of Elves must really irk you.

First, I do not remember Tolkien explicitly declaring elves physically taller than humans as as a rule (it was quite long since I read anything of his, however, so I just might forget) - they are dwarfing humans due to their overwhelming immortal presence. And this applies mostly to Calaquendi (Vanyar, Noldor and a few Teleri), less to Sinadar and Moriquendi.

Also, Silmarillion is a heroic epic where everything is bigger, taller, greater and better (or darker and more corrupt). Hobbit elves are certainly taller... When comparing to dwarves and hobbit that are protagonists of the story. If Lord Of The Rings had elves explicitly described as taller than men then I was too bored to notice that.

Additional, I referred mostly to D&D elves that are separate from fey lords and ladies.

I have no problems with Vanyar, Noldor, Liosalfar, Tiste Andi and other similar immortal entities being taller than man.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
But then you get things like this. Nothing about this image makes any sense. That woman is going to die very soon. It's so horrendous it's almost a parody.

Obviously that image does not make sense... Elven females are not endowed like that!


That character is wearing more armour than most Lineage characters I've seen. She must be a heavy armour class.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

She's clearly a Magus.


Sissyl wrote:

Dinosaurs are fine, I think... so long as you don't call them their sodding latin names. Every other monster gets a cool, evocative name like choker!, gorgon!, campestri!... but dinos get pachycephalosaurus and brachiosaurus. Don't get me started on Utahraptor.

Now, people relate to this stuff because those names are known. Putting new names is harder and risks not sticking. Given this, you need to work these monsters into the setting, same as all the other monsters. Still, I don't know if thickhead lizard, arm lizard and Utah bird will help much... It's a problem.

I still think it's the names. And I don't mind dinos in my fantasy.

I find this funny because one of the biggest complaints about Eberron I've heard was "they changed the names on the dinosaurs" to something more fantasy-evocative. I think the T-Rex for example became "Daggertooth Titan" or something like that.


Sissyl wrote:
Dinosaurs are fine, I think... so long as you don't call them their sodding latin names. Every other monster gets a cool, evocative name like choker!, gorgon!, campestri!... but dinos get pachycephalosaurus and brachiosaurus. Don't get me started on Utahraptor.

The names are probably the biggest part of what I don't like about them. I know James Jacobs thinks that we should uphold tradition by calling creatures by their real names but it's not like Humans are named Homo Sapiens in RPGs. Nevermind that the latin names can be cumbersome to write and pronounce, which only serves to slow things down at the table, "That's a pachy-what?"

Heck, T-Rex is a bastardization of it's true name, just as Raptor is a shortened version. Insisting on giving dinos in RPGs their given names strikes me as just plain silly.

Since we're on the topic of naming, that's another thing I don't like that happens WAY too often in rpgs: unpronounceable and difficult to spell NPC names. Nothing knocks me out of RP mode like trying to figure out the name of that guy we've been talking to all day.


Orthos wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Dinosaurs are fine, I think... so long as you don't call them their sodding latin names. Every other monster gets a cool, evocative name like choker!, gorgon!, campestri!... but dinos get pachycephalosaurus and brachiosaurus. Don't get me started on Utahraptor.

Now, people relate to this stuff because those names are known. Putting new names is harder and risks not sticking. Given this, you need to work these monsters into the setting, same as all the other monsters. Still, I don't know if thickhead lizard, arm lizard and Utah bird will help much... It's a problem.

I still think it's the names. And I don't mind dinos in my fantasy.

I find this funny because one of the biggest complaints about Eberron I've heard was "they changed the names on the dinosaurs" to something more fantasy-evocative. I think the T-Rex for example became "Daggertooth Titan" or something like that.

My first reaction was: uhh? But I soon got used to it and prefer it to using scientific names.


So, it seems we have some support for thickhead lizard and arm lizard here. =) But yes on the unpronounceable NPC names. My record is from The Library of Cormanthor by Mel Odom: (I am spelling from memory here) Nephft Scoontiphvt. It... just stumps me when I try. Still, it's still a good sight better than the stupid names: Gleep Wurp the Eyebiter...


Sissyl wrote:
So, it seems we have some support for thickhead lizard and arm lizard here. =) But yes on the unpronounceable NPC names. My record is from The Library of Cormanthor by Mel Odom: (I am spelling from memory here) Nephft Scoontiphvt. It... just stumps me when I try. Still, it's still a good sight better than the stupid names: Gleep Wurp the Eyebiter...

What is wrong with Nephft Scoontiphvt? :P

Ok, that phv seems to be a bit problematic.


I don't care much one way or the other on dinosaurs. The few I've used, they were only occasionally referred to by their species names, as they were important enough to the plot to have actual names (for example, Ripclaw and Temauhti-Tecuani in Savage Tide).

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

this one technically is for MMOs, but having to grind for rare crafting items, or even very specific points to buy said items that have a chance to fail regardless.

back on topic, I dislike instant win buttons, impossible to fail odds, party members being discounted and replaced by a 300 gp wand, intentionally disruptive party members, abilities that just aren't worth it in terms of conditional effects...

I don't mind guns, and I enjoy warforged too, what I don't like really are half-orc barbarians, never really have cared for them.


Drejk wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
So, it seems we have some support for thickhead lizard and arm lizard here. =) But yes on the unpronounceable NPC names. My record is from The Library of Cormanthor by Mel Odom: (I am spelling from memory here) Nephft Scoontiphvt. It... just stumps me when I try. Still, it's still a good sight better than the stupid names: Gleep Wurp the Eyebiter...

What is wrong with Nephft Scoontiphvt? :P

Ok, that phv seems to be a bit problematic.

And that's a Pole saying that!


Now how was that again, "P before hv, unless it's a tb, on Wednesday, when J is after ug," or something like that.


Kajehase wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
So, it seems we have some support for thickhead lizard and arm lizard here. =) But yes on the unpronounceable NPC names. My record is from The Library of Cormanthor by Mel Odom: (I am spelling from memory here) Nephft Scoontiphvt. It... just stumps me when I try. Still, it's still a good sight better than the stupid names: Gleep Wurp the Eyebiter...

What is wrong with Nephft Scoontiphvt? :P

Ok, that phv seems to be a bit problematic.

And that's a Pole saying that!

Say after me: Grze-gorz Brzę-czy-szczy-kie-wicz...

Actually, I see a few solutions to phv...

Read ph as f and read v as another f (like in German when v is in the begining of the word) eithere separated or as single long f. Not elegant because I already read Nephft with long f.

Read ph as f giving and trying to move from f to v smoothly. Requires a bit of practice.

Read p-h-vt. Hard.

Read p-silent h-vt. Again hard. The vt starts sounding like vyt after a few attempts.

Read p-silent h-silent v-t.

I think I'll stick with [neft skoontifft]. Shorter f for a phf and an extended f for phv.


Medieval settings, settings where low magic and realism is an excuse fora lack of imagination, when aberrations and dragons are not rare, untouchable gods, where monsters from 3 or more mythologies live together, when there are too many half- races, npcs equipped with too many magic items, dinosaurs outside of ''lost world'' lands, humanized elves, when there's more lore about the gods that about their followers, artifacts broken in parts, bearded old archwizards, countries where nothing changes for hundreds of years, settings with minority rights everywhere, animal companions, elven huge ears, when a few ancient civilizations return in the same year, infinite planes ...


It sounds like you're talking about a specific setting, but I can't think of which one, in specific (though "bearded old archwizards", "when a few ancient civilizations return in the same year", "infinite planes", and "when there's more lore about the gods that [sic] about their followers" seem to be referring to Forgotten Realms, while "untouchable gods" and "countries where nothing changes for hundreds of years" sounds like Golarion, and "monsters from 3 or more mythologies live together" sounds like D&D and PF in general).

Sovereign Court

I believe that Numerian didn't like the transition Forgotten realms made to 4th edition. I agree...


Ah. That... makes sense. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Numerian wrote:
settings with minority rights everywhere

While this may not be realistic, I often rather like this in fantasy settings. I'm a member of a minority IRL that receives a vast amount of hate and I have enough of it to deal with. I don't want to have to face the same things in a game as well.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

My setting has gods that specifically enforce those rights.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"The man steps from the shadows into the moonlight, his figures twisting and reshaping as you watch, forming the visage of a savage rage filled wolf man, unnatural muscles bulging beneath the creatures thick hide, ready to tear your throat out with his feral claws. Then he shoots at you with a crossbow" (or hits you with his mace)
LAME! I so do not want to DM or play in a game where werewolves use weapons of any kind. Im sure its something that only ever happens in D&D/Pathfinder. Were-Rats, fine, crafty buggers, Im sure normal rats would slit our throats with daggers if only they had a chance. But fang-mawed, savage clawed Werewolves using a manufactured weapon annoys me. Also the game stats & rules that make it a more effective attack form


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
My setting has gods that specifically enforce those rights.

That's rather cool. I like that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Wander Weir wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
My setting has gods that specifically enforce those rights.
That's rather cool. I like that.

Yeah, it's hazardous to be sexist to the goddess of the hunt. ;)


DM playing their own characters ...


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Numerian wrote:
settings with minority rights everywhere
While this may not be realistic, I often rather like this in fantasy settings. I'm a member of a minority IRL that receives a vast amount of hate and I have enough of it to deal with. I don't want to have to face the same things in a game as well.

For those who don't know I'm a gay guy IRL. I considered playing a gay character, but frankly it's just not something I really want to deal with. Especially in my otherwise hetero male group. Though they'd probably be fine with it. Sexuality of any kind is rare in our games. With the occational exception of randy barmaids etc who have their eyes on someone specific.

Having a lack of minority rights is in the same category for me. We could do it, but outside of very specific circumstances it wouldnt really add much to the game.

Anti-species groups are more common and are farther from any real life geopolitical issues.


I'm kinda irked by universal morality in the setting. One of the great improvements of Golarion over other settings, I think, is the fact that slavery, etc, are commonplace but still "not good". In other settings, where certain behaviors are universally reviled, the PCs start to feel like policemen and enforcers of the status quo rather than courageous, exceptional heroes.

I guess I just want a world where not everyone pats the PCs on the back for doing the right thing. I cry foul when the fantasy world is more universally moral than the real world... in such a world, what is there for heroes to do? Gang up on the minority?

Sovereign Court

I've once made the best blacksmith in town gay. Of course, i made him to be a normal, regular guy, not some kind of girly fashion designer that for some reason most straight people think that gay people behave like. He is one of their favorite npcs at the moment.

I used not to have anything gay in my games, mostly because of bigots and homophobes that i used to play with. Then i changed my group to people who don't care about that stuff, and it is much more fun to play now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be honest, never really had any sexual content come up in any of my games. Not even from a player. Reading these boards, I feel like that's a rarity?

Same kinda goes for any bigotry, other than what's called for in a story as a setting. Just never really comes up with my players.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

I'm kinda irked by universal morality in the setting. One of the great improvements of Golarion over other settings, I think, is the fact that slavery, etc, are commonplace but still "not good". In other settings, where certain behaviors are universally reviled, the PCs start to feel like policemen and enforcers of the status quo rather than courageous, exceptional heroes.

I guess I just want a world where not everyone pats the PCs on the back for doing the right thing. I cry foul when the fantasy world is more universally moral than the real world... in such a world, what is there for heroes to do? Gang up on the minority?

Necromancers? Demonologists? Worshippers of fringe faiths?

Note that all of those groups are persecuted minorities.

You might want to try Midnight - the heroes are persecuted minority there.


Digitalelf wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
I hate helmets on anyone not wearing full plate.

What about the Normans or Templars? They pretty much set the standard for wearing chain with helmets...

Just sayin'...

Never said it wasn't historically accurate...just hate the looks in most cases. I do dig the Templar look, but they're still pretty well armored and the helm is simple so it balances out pretty well. Still I prefer helms with heavy armor.


I like helms with little or no armor. Gives a sorta realistic, non-larger-than-life feel for me. Dunno why.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Anti-species groups are more common and are farther from any real life geopolitical issues.

Reminds me of a Terry Pratchett quote from Witches Abroad: "Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because - what with trolls and dwarfs and so on - speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green."

Also, and I'm not naming names, but good vampires; or for that matter, good werewolves, or good gothic monsters in general. They're supposed to be...well, monsters. They should kill and eat people. They can be tragic or well-developed or sympathetic, but the minute you lose sight of that key fact is the moment they stop being monsters and become super-heroes.


Drejk wrote:
You might want to try Midnight - the heroes are persecuted minority there.

Or Pathfinder, which does a decent job of this, IMO.

I recognize that it is a matter of preference.


Bob Evil wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Anti-species groups are more common and are farther from any real life geopolitical issues.
Reminds me of a Terry Pratchett quote from Witches Abroad: "Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because - what with trolls and dwarfs and so on - speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green."

Nice.


Ridiculous difficulty. If I fear my character's mortality too much, then I will refuse to act when a plot hook presents itself.

Sovereign Court

Stuck up I'm cooler than everything elves... so elves.


Also, along with my backstory complaint, I dislike things like:
"I move 3 squares and attack with my +1 flaming bastard sword"

At least, I dislike when that is the sort of statement made every time. I like descriptive combat and will be VERY generous to the player attempting something clever if they are nice and descriptive.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like dinosaurs in my fantasy either. I'm not going to say they don't belong in any fantasy ever, but I don't like them in mine. I get annoyed when I see a bunch of dinosaurs in an adventure because it means I'll have to replace them with something else (or refluff them). Also, it's often frustrating working with lots of creatures bigger than Large anyway. I'm careful about megafauna for similar reasons, although it's easier to fit them in with what I do with fantasy. Maybe I'm just prejudiced against reptiles, I don't know. I just don't like the Lost World feel mixed with my unicorns and dragons fantasy.

I prefer canny thiefy goblins to weird mutant creepdorable pyromaniacs also.

I don't like obvious "this is an Earth country that we just refluffed fantasy and planted into a fantasy world." I want a _fantasy world_ to be just that. I do not want, "Oh, this place is France/Japan/Mexico, but with wizards." Now, there's some leeway to be given here. Obviously, because fantasy draws from our own mythlore, and obviously, because we need to have some basis in reality we look to history to feed how we are going to build nations and cultures, some fantasy nations and events are going to have some resemblances to real world culture or history--but it shouldn't be blatant, and there should be creative mishmashes and stuff made from whole cloth to make these places unique and not obvious expys of real places.

Part of this is why I got annoyed when a whole bunch of Chinese and Japanese specific weapons got added to the gear list when the weapons list is otherwise often with generic weapon-type names (short sword, not gladius or smallsword). Unique names for unique weapons, sure, but including a large number of specific weapons from a single culture implies you have to have a world where there is a nation that is that real world nation by another name.

There is also an exception to this if the world of course is actually Earth, just a fantasy version of it.

Also, the way nations are structured need to bear fantasy in mind. If you have a world where magic is insanely powerful but there are no magocracies or other ways that influences politics or advancement, then no. If your world doesn't really consider about how fantasy elements would affect civilization's development, I don't want to play in it.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Drejk wrote:
You might want to try Midnight - the heroes are persecuted minority there.

Or Pathfinder, which does a decent job of this, IMO.

I recognize that it is a matter of preference.

Midnight is a setting that can be used with PF rules quite easily (in fact races are boosted up when comparing to 3.5 and come closer to PF). It is also completely different setting than Golarion - the closest description to it would be what was the Middle-Earth feel if the Sauron won and submitted the world to own order.


That does sound pretty frikkan cool to me.

Grand Lodge

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Numerian wrote:
settings with minority rights everywhere
While this may not be realistic, I often rather like this in fantasy settings. I'm a member of a minority IRL that receives a vast amount of hate and I have enough of it to deal with. I don't want to have to face the same things in a game as well.

For those who don't know I'm a gay guy IRL. I considered playing a gay character, but frankly it's just not something I really want to deal with. Especially in my otherwise hetero male group. Though they'd probably be fine with it. Sexuality of any kind is rare in our games. With the occational exception of randy barmaids etc who have their eyes on someone specific.

Having a lack of minority rights is in the same category for me. We could do it, but outside of very specific circumstances it wouldnt really add much to the game.

Anti-species groups are more common and are farther from any real life geopolitical issues.

Thirded about the minority rights thing. Medieval Europe was shaped by various forces---mostly, but not exclusively, Christianity---that are absent from fantasy worlds. Homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. become a matter of personal flavor when we're dealing with invented gods and lands absent of real-world factors.

Now, if you want to set your world in 15th Century England, yeah, I could see the argument. I would probably still hand-wave it, personally, but I could understand somebody wanting to play it historically accurate.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
That does sound pretty frikkan cool to me.

Yeah. It's interesting system with great potential. Magic is potent and yet dangerous and hard to access. No magic shops - creating items requires actual work from the rare casters. Depending upon mood and wants it can be played as very grimdark survival horror or heroic fight against the overwhelming forces of darkness.

And with some tweaking it can be played in Pathfinder. Maybe I sit and make a Channeler class and magic conversion someday.

Not that I have any personal bias preaching Midnight to others.

Spoiler:
It has absolutely nothing to do with my name being included in credits of Polish edition together with other members of the Midnight's translation advisory group. And me getting a free copy from the publisher.

Dark Archive

DeathQuaker wrote:

I don't like obvious "this is an Earth country that we just refluffed fantasy and planted into a fantasy world." I want a _fantasy world_ to be just that. I do not want, "Oh, this place is France/Japan/Mexico, but with wizards." Now, there's some leeway to be given here. Obviously, because fantasy draws from our own mythlore, and obviously, because we need to have some basis in reality we look to history to feed how we are going to build nations and cultures, some fantasy nations and events are going to have some resemblances to real world culture or history--but it shouldn't be blatant, and there should be creative mishmashes and stuff made from whole cloth to make these places unique and not obvious expys of real places.

Could not agree more. The Kara Tur boxed set from second edition was the worst offender I ever saw - literally every country they gave had a direct real world analogue. It was like they wanted to make a game set in Asia and add monsters, but they thought it wouldn't sell so they slapped a Forgotten Realms label on it and shipped it.

101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Things you just don't like in your fantasy RPGs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.