When it comes to sitting on the player side of the table,
- I prefer games with a lot of scope for player initiative and planning. I don’t insist on Sandbox worlds, but I really dislike railroading.
- I tend towards playing Mad Thinker types; even my brutes tend to have flashes of So Stupid It’s Brilliant insights. My favorite parts of the game are when the brilliant flashes of insight pan out, followed by PC interaction, then PC-NPC interaction.
- The mere process of grinding through combat until a foe runs out of HP is fairly boring; adding fiddly bits to make the combat “more interesting” mostly makes it more tedious. I prefer combat to be made more interesting by giving the players scope to do stuff that doesn’t involve invoking obscure rules or counting hexes, and by making the stakes more interesting.
- Adding fiddly bits that directly let the players push the story around usually annoys me as a player, though I don’t object to it as a GM, and as a player I don’t object to having input into the direction of the story as long as it happens outside of the game. It’s having story-manipulation resources that I have to track that gives me the pip.