Worst mechanics in a LitRPG series?

[Raleigh]

I'm a fan of learning about how to write things well. BUT, I also love learning about what NOT to write. So what are the worst mechanics you've seen in LitRPGs?

[J.]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a bad mechanic that I've read, although I'm sure there are some out there. However, I will say that whatever mechanics are employed in the story ought to be consistent and not ignored or forgotten. I do recall reading stories where a concept is established and the character does that thing, but then later in the story that thing no longer seems to apply, as if the writer has forgotten the mechanic in favor of some new cool thing the MC is doing currently in their story.

I think the other expectation for the genre would be that any mechanics should be game-like for the most part.

[Darren]

I think one of the worst mistakes these authors make is that they think the mechanics IS the story. It's part of the story, requires balancing but LITRPG isn't a book of mechanics and level ups- any good litrpg should tell a story - mechanics only helps tell a portion of that story.

While there's nothing wrong with OP and some cool powers... and it helps to be able to understand how those powers have limits .. why bother if the characters are shallow, the story is weak - yet it continues into book 10 just so the MC and associates can get down the river a few miles.

[J.]

Darren makes an excellent point. The mechanics are the framework in which the story is told, but it still has to be a story in order to be worth reading. Without conflict, both internal and external, character growth, etc, then it is just boring. I love 'numbers go up', but unless I have some reason to care about the character and their struggles, it ends up being flat and boring.

[Jake]

I dislike it when our main character, with a few exceptional abilities, easily defeats numerous powerful opponents. I believe fights should be challenging and earned through skill, not simply won through repetitive stealth attacks.

[J.]

There is a spectrum of what audiences like. Some like to see characters put through hell, page after page. On the other side, some like seeing a character just curb-stomp everything in their path. I tend to be a little more toward the OP end of the spectrum, but still like my characters to have challenges and have it feel satisfying when they achieve something.

[Joshua (ithildins)]

I'll list here things that will make me skim sections of a fic. They aren't related to game mechanics per se, but more story mechanics.

1. The MC constantly getting ambushed by monsters when either distracted in a dangerous zone or not prepared for the threats in the area. I'm reading GameLit where characters can improve themselves and earn levels/skills; why are they still so dumb?

2. Fight scenes that have the main/s life always on the line. Sure, the author can throw a curveball or two into a skirmish with mobs, but are they really going to kill off an MC? Fake stakes for the sole purpose of trying to make EVERY win feel hard-won or earned? It's okay to save those when fighting new monsters or boss-level monsters.

3. The character wanting/thinking about what they need and the author forcing them down a different prescribed path.

If the character wants a weapon skill and opts for a minion skill OR wants to wield magic but the author says "No, you're going to run a questing inn instead and like it." OR doesn't research enough into irreversible changes and ends up with abilities that are misaligned with their personality/morality (could be good as character study as long as the MC shows a solid struggle with trying to balance that dichotomy instead of the author handling it like the charater is a huge hypocrite) - it throws me out of the fic since GameLit should be character-driven above all else.

All stories should be, really, but GameLit even more so, since the characters are repeatedly choosing skills, upgrades, weapons and armour, quests, &c - robbing characters of that choice in favour of forcing them down a certain path is a disservice to the author's plot - why not write a character that fits the plot, or let the characters decide their own path and then rework the story.

4. Instant settling - whether it's the first town the character travels to or the first romantic option available, where is the choice? The world becomes limited in scope, or the main character is on a case of insta-love and has to immediately settle down with a spouse and kids - all to give the main something to fight for. Let them explore for a few books, and let them get into a few relationships before coming across Neo. Again, it's not a choice when the character has only one option.

5. Cosy, slice-of-life stories that almost always turn into a story with monsters or armies attacking. Having a mine or dungeon for optional delving is one thing. Forcing a character who wants to settle down into risking their life on a daily basis fighting rogue crops, mobs, and bullies isn't exactly cosy and takes away from the relaxed atmosphere.

As with all personal preferences, these can be incorporated and done well, but the ones I came across implemented them in a poorly executed fashion. And this is personal preference as other readers may enjoy one of the above story mechanics. Sorry if you recognised a litrpg or two in one of my examples - if you liked them, then I'm glad they worked for you. They just weren't my thing for the reasons stated above.

[J.]

That's a well-thought-out list, Joshua!

Not everyone is going to like every story; there is a spectrum of authors and readers out there. However, what Joshua mentions mostly boils down to consistency and agency. If the author sets up a story to be one thing and then subverts that expectation, it's going to be jarring for the reader. If you do that, then you'd better do it with a plan and do it for a purpose.

Personally, I'm not a fan of stories where the character seems to have no agency. They just get kicked around constantly, from one bad situation to the next, never having a choice or choosing to act of their own volition. I like it when characters make choices and grow from them, even if those are sometimes bad choices. Just don't make them always be bad choices, otherwise we start to root for the bad guys.

For example, you've all probably screamed at the movie screen when some dumbass MC casually walks away after supposedly killing the bad guy, only to have them pop back up and come after them again. You get exactly ONE chance of making that mistake and have me still suspend my disbelief. If the character does it again, I"'m rooting for the bad guy because the MC is too stupid to live at that point! I still remember watching the Hollow Man with Kevin Bacon as the bad guy. The MCs two or three times 'killed' him and walked away without verifying his death. I seriously wanted the bad guy to win by the end of that movie.

[Joshua (ithildins)]

I definitely remember rooting for Kevin Bacon's character in The Hollow Man - also, that's the film that told young me duct tape can fix everything. Well, the old kind of duct tape. Is it just me or does duct tape not work like it used to anymore?

And yes, having the mistakes and character learns a lesson moment's few and far between is so much better than a character constantly making idiotic decisions.

Which makes me think of another trope of GameLit that is extremely difficult to pull off - the sidekick/guide that is overly quippy and exists solely to poke fun at the MC and how stupid they are.

Too many times, GameLit authors write those characters or even systems into the novel as a sort of preemptive strike to combat their main character's stupidity - if the author pokes fun of the MC in their own story, it doesn't instantly absolve the crime of having written such an incompetent character.

A character can make a mistake or two and the average reader isn't going to jump at the chance to call them an idiot - it's when they never learn that we start hating the MC.

Some authors have great systems/worlds, but lack the ability to write a solid, competent MC. Others have great characters but such low or non-existent systems that it makes one wonder why the author bothered with the system thing at all and didn't just go the magic/tech route and turn the story into a regular fantasy/sci-fi.

There are a lot of GameLit novels that would so much better reworked with the game mechanics removed. I'm one of those who like my LitRPG to be crunchy. But I want to feel like I'm watching a great player run through a game - whether they intuitively pick up the mechanics or just want to abuse the mechanics until the game hilariously breaks, I'm in for a good time.

If the player is just fumbling around and constantly dying and nothing is happening or progressing, I'm just not going to be interested in continuing to watch.

[J.]

Sounds like you might like my story. It's in the final stages of editing, and I'm hoping to get it up for presale in the next week or two at the latest. If you do end up reading it, hopefully, you'll like the MC. My readers usually complement me on writing believable characters. This will be my first venture into LitRPG/GameLit genres; I think you'll find it crunchy enough, even though my other books are in the Epic and Urban Fantasy genres. I won't mention the names of my books here for fear of getting banned for self-promotion, but if you are interested in my stuff, look up J David Baxter - author.

[Jake]

I will read your books too!