Most of my games go on for a while. It helps that most of my games are in long-term gaming groups where we'll still play together even if we get sick of any particular game and end it early.
Then again, if a game didn't even go to one session I wouldn't count it as existing. Not that I can think of any of those.
A lot of the fiddling with recent versions of D+D that people hated was to try to make it stay balanced throughout the whole game. This meant nerfing wizards since by default they become all-powerful gods. 3.5 and Pathfinder aren't *that* bad? Pathfinder in particular made sure that everyone became an all-powerful god around level 10. But they have a lot of 'take useless thing A now so that you can take useful thing B later'. It's generally not enough to make your entire character useless but it does mean you've got feats and skills you have no intention of ever using for a while.
So, let's see... what annoys me about RPGs in general... (1) Disadvantages that require the GM to remember about them in order to do anything. I especially hate these when I'm the GM. (2) Systems that force you to actually use your disadvantages, like the Victoriana game I'm in where if you don't have every disadvantage hit every session you're not earning fate. Some of my disadvantages are *literally impossible to hit* because the game took a weird turn or because I *solved the problem* and the system has no facility for changing your disadvantages or earning new ones (that give you fate) ever. (3) Actually, I kind of hate point-based systems in general because you never feel like you're advancing, even if you are. Part of it is probably that point-based systems tend to be *incredibly* stingy with advancement. In D+D you expect to double your power after three or four sessions by levelling up to 2. In a point-based game you expect to double your power after something like 50 sessions since you get 3 xp per session and important things cost 20.
no subject
Then again, if a game didn't even go to one session I wouldn't count it as existing. Not that I can think of any of those.
A lot of the fiddling with recent versions of D+D that people hated was to try to make it stay balanced throughout the whole game. This meant nerfing wizards since by default they become all-powerful gods. 3.5 and Pathfinder aren't *that* bad? Pathfinder in particular made sure that everyone became an all-powerful god around level 10. But they have a lot of 'take useless thing A now so that you can take useful thing B later'. It's generally not enough to make your entire character useless but it does mean you've got feats and skills you have no intention of ever using for a while.
So, let's see... what annoys me about RPGs in general...
(1) Disadvantages that require the GM to remember about them in order to do anything. I especially hate these when I'm the GM.
(2) Systems that force you to actually use your disadvantages, like the Victoriana game I'm in where if you don't have every disadvantage hit every session you're not earning fate. Some of my disadvantages are *literally impossible to hit* because the game took a weird turn or because I *solved the problem* and the system has no facility for changing your disadvantages or earning new ones (that give you fate) ever.
(3) Actually, I kind of hate point-based systems in general because you never feel like you're advancing, even if you are. Part of it is probably that point-based systems tend to be *incredibly* stingy with advancement. In D+D you expect to double your power after three or four sessions by levelling up to 2. In a point-based game you expect to double your power after something like 50 sessions since you get 3 xp per session and important things cost 20.