Forked Thread: Difference Between Playing and Not

[cougent]

I would also vote NO GAMING instead of BAD GAMING.

When a group of us started playing 3.0 in 2000, I wanted to play but no one else wanted to DM or had experience DMing, so I took the reigns and sat in the end table chair. Almost immediately it became apparent that one of the party of 5 was intent upon being a thorn in my side. He was / is a friend, in fact he is my cousin, but he was a horrible gamer to me. I offered to let him, or anyone else DM and still no one wanted it. The other 4 were very content with my DMing and how I ran the game. Only this one person was making us all miserable. It quickly became an issue of one of us had to go, and the will of the group was that it was him. That group grew and changed and lasted for 5 years after that, but those first few sessions were so brutal I was ready to quit 3.0 before the new smell had even faded from my DMG.

Bad gaming is just bad, there is no saving throw for it.

 

[Psion]

Depends on what constitutes bad gaming.

Gaming with a set of rules I think are junk (like Savage Worlds or Palladium or (Dare I say it?) 4e) with good friends? I'll play.

Playing with bad personalities? I have better things to do.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Life's WAY too short to endure bad games.

I have never understood this sentiment. I mean, when someone says the word, "lifetime" they're talking about a long period of time. Life is long, its an entire lifetime.

At any rate, I don't think I've ever actually experienced bad gaming. I mean, I've been with bad gamers before, but its not terribly difficult to just remove them from the situation and then let the good times roll...

 

[Gothmog]

No gaming is definitely better than bad gaming. I've bowed out of three groups where there was a great GM, but the gaming was so bad, I actually dreaded going.

Group #1- Two years ago, D&D 3.5 game. I never have really liked the 3.0/3.5 rules- it always feels unsatisfying in play to me. I've always found in the 9 groups I played 3.x with that the rules get in the way of play as people focus way too much on builds, min/maxing, system mastery, and "lone-wolfiness". The guy DMing the game was an excellent DM who made complex plots, deep characters, and had a lot of cool twists in his games (I'd played WHFRP, AD&D 2e, Alternity, and Paranoia with him, and always had a blast). The guys playing in the game all got along and were funny and nice. So I had high hopes for this game. Alas, it was not to be. This group devolved into munchtwinkery and the magical/character ability arms race to a worse degree than any group I'd seen (and I'm ashamed to admit, I did this too- mostly to keep my character even remotely relevant), and the DM was obviously frustrated they had done so. I bowed out of the game, and a few months later the DM ended the game because he was frustrated with the rules and how the players focused on rules to the exclusion of everything else. Oddly enough, the 4e group I'm running now had two of the same players in it, and they don't go all munchtwinkery in it. These guys also play in a Deadlands Savage Worlds game I run, with no problems. Rules can make a huge difference in player behavior.

Group #2- Probably 10 years ago, Star Wars d6 game- a system I really liked at first, but with more time playing it, the more I loathed it. Again, a good GM in that game, and the players were fun guys. It was set in the late Rebellion era, and we had 5 players: 4 "mundane" characters, and one jedi. What it came down to was that the jedi made all other characters irrelevant, except in very specific circumstances (computer repair for example). Playing backup for a character roughly five times more potent than any other character and who could do anything is about the most dull thing imaginable. I bowed out of that game, and although I've tried the Star Wars d6 system two more times after that, its always been with the same result.

Group #3- Probably 12 years ago, oWoD Vampire game. A pretty good system, but with its own quirks. The GM was a "colorful" guy, but very good- one of the only GMs I have gamed with who could weird people out during a game with his themes, mood, and subject matter. A truly "mature" gamer, and not in the retarded Book of Vile Darkness way. The problem here was the other players were truly the sterotypical mid-90's Vampire players (and yes, that means freakshow). I played with them for about five months, but eventually had to quit when a guy and girl in the group started acting really weird (and not grandma-friendly) during game sessions, and one guy who was schizotypal quit taking his meds and began bringing weapons to gaming sessions to act out what his character was doing, which ended with the evisceration of a couch with a katana.

 

[Oni]

Depends on what constitutes bad gaming.

Gaming with a set of rules I think are junk with good friends? I'll play.

Playing with bad personalities? I have better things to do.

This.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Bad gaming better than no gaming?

For me, no.

It's true.

The game is not the goal. The goal is to enjoy myself and my friends. I can do that with a LOT of different tools.

The PnPRPG is just one of 'em.

But I'd still say a good DM can make any game worth playing.

 

[WayneLigon]

It would really depend on how bad it was. Some of the stuff I've played through at the game store? 'No gaming' is better than that stuff. But the regular game I have is the only time I get to see most of my friends. If something happened to where they decided to go with a system I hate, I'd just tag along knowing that this, too, shall pass.

 

[Umbran]

Assuming my own definition of "bad", then I prefer to not game at all than to go through bad gaming.

 

[SteveC]

Depends on what constitutes bad gaming.

Gaming with a set of rules I think are junk (like Savage Worlds or Palladium or (Dare I say it?) 4e) with good friends? I'll play.

Playing with bad personalities? I have better things to do.

Pretty much this. Gaming is a social experience for me first and foremost, so the game is secondary to the friendship.

However, after experiencing some truly bad game systems I might reconsider, but I'll give just about anything a shot.

--Steve

 

[Fifth Element]

Bad gaming better than no gaming?

Depends on what you mean by bad gaming.

If you mean gaming that is relatively bad when compared to good gaming, it can still be relatively good compared to other possible uses of my time, because I like gaming a lot. In such a case, yes, bad gaming is better than no gaming.

If you mean gaming that is truly a negative experience in and of itself, bad gaming is worse than no gaming.