What Are Some Mechanics In Tabletop Games You Don't Like?

[Captain Karnage]

Hey all

So my friend and I a reworking a part of our game that didn't play to well, and our few testers didn't care for it.

So it got me thinking that I might want to ask around on the various platforms I visit what people do and don't like about table top games.

Tabletop games are like the one in Yu-Gi-Oh, D&D, or whatever you and your friends play

[Rezzy]

I've played D&D for give or take 20 years, so I could go on for ages about nit picks I have there.

 

Off the top of my head, the first thing is how combat at higher levels gets really bogs down and takes forever, at least in 3rd ed D&D and Pathfinder and to a lesser extant 4th ed D&D.  Melee classes are already underpowered, and rolling about for 8 attacks every round can take forever, not to mention lots of players take forever to decide what to do with their turn since they have so many options, which can be worse with spell casters.

 

I don't want to hijack the topic, so that's all I'll say for now.

[Flere210]

Whit a good melee build you can Saitama most of the monster manual. And you should because single target damage is the one thing melee players can di well.

Anyway, i really hate 5e bounded accuracy. Basically is a design philosophy that limit the number scaling so that goblins can be a threat at high level.

My problem is that D&D biggest strenght is that the 1-20 curve allow you to emply a wide variety of fantasy styles, from the lowest one were a pack of wolves is a lethal encounter, to the highst were you are legendary heroes ducking out whit Cthulhu. Bounded accuracy flatten the curve in such a way that you can't play either of those. And flavourwise, what is the point of heroes and adventures when a squad of horse archers can, rulewise, take on everything below epic?

[Armchair General]

Yu-Gi-Oh is shit nowadays. You have to keep buying new cards to keep up with the metagame

[Dr. C]

1 hour ago, Rezzy said:

I've played D&D for give or take 20 years, so I could go on for ages about nit picks I have there.

 

Off the top of my head, the first thing is how combat at higher levels gets really bogs down and takes forever, at least in 3rd ed D&D and Pathfinder and to a lesser extant 4th ed D&D.  Melee classes are already underpowered, and rolling about for 8 attacks every round can take forever, not to mention lots of players take forever to decide what to do with their turn since they have so many options, which can be worse with spell casters.

 

I don't want to hijack the topic, so that's all I'll say for now.

It’s funny you should say that.

I have never been able to get past Level 2 on any character even in prolonged campaigns.

I will grant you that I have never been able to maintain a steady campaign ever but even with that in mind... my goodness I takes forever to get a level up! And when you’re a spellcaster, that can be frustrating. 

[Ertrick36]

If there's one thing I am not a fan of in DnD 5e, it's that small characters can't use heavy weapons.  This isn't normally an issue because most heavy weapons are strength-based weapons and most playable small races aren't typically geared towards strength builds (though you most certainly can make them beefy), but it's particularly an issue when it comes to bow choice.  Specifically, you are unable to wield longbows or heavy crossbows effectively if you are a small being, which arbitrarily gimps the ranged combat potential of races like halflings and gnomes when they opt to use classes such as Ranger or Paladin since heavier ranged weapons are the best ranged weapon choices for those classes.

Also not the biggest fan of the "monstrous" races as they're done in Volo's Guide (referring to Kobolds, Goblinoids, Orcs, and Yuan-Ti Purebloods).  They get the short end of the stick simply because they're not normally supposed to be playable/are only supposed to be generic mob races?  It's a shame too because the Aasimar, Lizardfolk, Tabaxi, and other playable races in that were handled quite well, imo.  The monstrous races just felt like afterthoughts, though.

And while not necessarily mechanical, I don't like rolling with the vanilla lore of DnD races/monsters.  I dunno, I just like it when things are shaken up - when those that are supposed to be "evil" are more morally ambiguous or possibly even good while those that are typically benevolent (as in, they're created specifically to be benevolent, such as angels, or are bound by moral codes like paladins) have room to commit morally questionable acts.  It's why I'm glad they did away with moral requirements in 5e for classes or races.

1 minute ago, Dr. C said:

It’s funny you should say that.

I have never been able to get past Level 2 on any character even in prolonged campaigns.

I will grant you that I have never been able to maintain a steady campaign ever but even with that in mind... my goodness I takes forever to get a level up! And when you’re a spellcaster, that can be frustrating. 

Never played anything besides 5e, so I wouldn't know how leveling's handled in other games.

But usually in the games I participate in leveling's done at the DM's discretion.  There was one point in a campaign I played where the party jump up, like, 3 or 4 levels because we chanced upon a rare lategame encounter (non-combative - it was basically just a free power-up, with a swanky castle in the sky to boot) really early on.

I know that with campaigns and sessions done by the Adventurer's Guild you have to use the normal experience system...  But I always just prefer playing it by ear.