For me it's the players not the game

[dbm]

For me, personally, it doesn't work like that. I think I'll enjoy any game (within reason) as long as I like the other players and the GM is OK.

I don't think the game itself matters all that much to me.

I would agree that the group is the most important factor, however personally my group is stable so that part of the equation is not a ‘variable’. Hence, the system makes a difference to the fun at the table.

 

[SableWyvern]

I mean, paying a more-or-less unbroken attention to the game state while keeping in mind at least most of the rules for 3-4 hours is bound to be a taxing activity regardless of how you slice it, and if you don't do either, you just basically offload this tax to someone else, which is also, uhm, not ideal.

It doesn't have to be exhausting, but it's still not even remotely in the same ballpark as just chatting or playing cards with no stakes or Mario Kart.

The only game I've found at all taxing to run is Blades in the Dark, because it required constant ongoing improvisation with barely a lull. I would feel a degree of mental exhaustion by the end of a session. That was offset by the fact that I could put literally zero thought into the game between sessions, and the game would run brilliantly.

That said, I am 100% certain that roleplaying is not "bound to be a taxing activity" because I know for a fact that I just don't find it taxing, the vast majority of the time.

I am happy to accept that some people do, and if that's the case, sure, I understand that you will approach it differently to the way I do. But you also need to understand that not everyone finds it so.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

For me, it's the players and the game.

That, but the GM matters too - and if they're lucky enough to have them, any co-GMs or other assistants. Everyone at the table and the game you're playing contribute to making the stew taste right - or wrong.

You might also consider the space you're all gaming in. You often get a different experience from playing at home, or a con, or at a game store, or in a public venue that isn't game-connected, even when the group and game are otherwise identical. To extend the stew metaphor, the pot matters too.

 

[SableWyvern]

That, but the GM matters too - and if they're lucky enough to have them, any co-GMs or other assistants. Everyone at the table and the game you're playing contribute to making the stew taste right - or wrong.

You might also consider the space you're all gaming in. You often get a different experience from playing at home, or a con, or at a game store, or in a public venue that isn't game-connected, even when the group and game are otherwise identical. To extend the stew metaphor, the pot matters too.

Well, in my case, I'm the GM and venue is my lounge room, so that's all sorted.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

Well, in my case, I'm the GM and venue is my lounge room, so that's all sorted.

Even at home you can have little variance if you have neighbors/roomies/housemates who aren't in the game and object to the noise. Inviting them to join in doesn't always work.

I remember one place I was renting at where we started getting religious tracts shoved in the mailbox after we started playing regularly, and no one else on the street was getting the same treatment. Eventually caught a nutter from across the street and six houses down doing it, asked them to stop and stay off the property, and they called the cops because they "were being threatened by devil worshippers." Only time in my life I've had a police officer actually be apologetic about knocking on the door. He basically asked "D&D game?" and then said this was the third time the pest had pulled this stunt in the last year, and if he did it again we should call the station and they're stifle him for us.

And that was 1998, not the 80s in the height of the Satanic Panic.

 

[Thauramarth]

I would agree that enjoyment is a bith matter of players and game, but more players than game. I'd rather use a bad system with happy players, than play a good system with unhappy players.

Game system feeds into happiness, though. Different people enjoy different games. My group, for instance, is happiest playing BRP, because we all know it well, and it does not act as a drag on play. On the other hand, several players are not wild about certain aspects of D&D, in particular the play at low level, which, on the other hand some others enjoy.

So, happy players first, but you cannot get happy players without a good (however anyone defines that) system.

 

[Andvari]

A poorly designed system can be a lot of fun with a good group, while the best designed system will still be awful with a bad group.
Optimal is a good group with a good system, but often you can't get everything you want.

 

[Umbran]

edit: somehow this post got stuck for "moderator approval" so I guess there is something wrong with it? If it's controversial somehow, I'd delete it entirely, but it doesn't seem possible? (Sorry, I'm new here)

Mod Note: Not controversial - we have some automated filters to catch spam, and every once in a while they ping on a new user for patterns in their post, and refers them to us for review.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I fully agree. D&D has always been a hobby closely associated with friendships. I really only play with friends, or with people I'm interested in becoming friends with.

Because of that, I'd pretty much run or play anything as long as it was with a good group of friends. The best systems are the ones that allow us all to have fun together. Sometimes that's D&D, sometimes it's Fate, sometimes it's Ironsworn, sometimes it's Dread!

 

[MGibster]

For me, personally, it doesn't work like that. I think I'll enjoy any game (within reason) as long as I like the other players and the GM is OK.

I'm largely in agreement here. At the very least, I can enjoy myself well enough when I like the people I'm gaming with even if I don't care for the game itself. I tried running Rogue Trader (Fantasy Flight Games version) many years ago, and although we all liked each other, we all came to the conclusion that the rules were so bad that none of us wanted to continue playing.

I don't think the game itself matters all that much to me. I've played a bunch of different rule systems and settings, and generally speaking, the main factor which determined whether I enjoyed it or not wasn't the game itself, it was the people I was gaming with.

I can't say it doesn't matter to me. A few years ago I was a player in, well, whatever RPG is the same setting as Guild Ball. It was a new game to me and I gave it a shot, but I didn't care for either the rules or the setting. I still managed to have some fun because I liked the people I was gaming with, but if they ever decide to play that game again I will sit that campaign out.