• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

The Dungeon Master or The Rules: why would you play in a RPG campaign?

Would you play in this campaign?

  • Yes, I'd even purchase more books than required.

    Votes: 22 18.5%
  • Yes, not happy, but I'd buy the required book(s)

    Votes: 26 21.8%
  • Yes, but I'd try to convince the DM to run the old RPG, not buying anything

    Votes: 20 16.8%
  • Yes, but I'd keep my opinions to myself.

    Votes: 32 26.9%
  • No. I'm not wasting time on an RPG I don't like, despite the DM being awesome.

    Votes: 19 16.0%

Vyvyan Basterd

Adventurer
Hell yeah, especially if your friends with the DM/rest of the Players. Since then it isn't just the game that you're there for fun but just being with your friends.

Having an excellent DM just means all the better.

Edit: For the poll. None of those really fit. For myself it would be, "Yes, I'd be happy to try it but probably wouldn't buy the books."

This. I chose "Yes, try to convince..., not buy the books." Except I wouldn't try to convince the GM what to run. I'd try the game with a good attitude, because if I don't own the books my opinion may have been uninformed or I could have had experience through a not-as-good GM. Plus if he's "a really good guy" we would probably be friends and I wouldn't ditch time hanging out with a good friend just because we're not playing my system of choice.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

smdmcl

First Post
I chose "Yes, but I'd try to convince the DM to run the old RPG, not buying anything" because my current group has a great DM and I have played with them for >10 years.

That said, if he said our next campaign would be run in 3rd edition I would have to give it serious thought. I would prefer to go back to 2nd edition than play under the 3rd edition rules again because of my distaste for the system.
 

Remathilis

Legend
No, and I can say that because I DID walk out of a DM's game (a close friend of mine and overall good DM) because after a few games of trying his newest RPG purchase, I was frustrated, bored, and unmotivated to even show up. I told him (and to his credit, he did) to let me know when they were going back to either D&D or Star Wars d20, because I would not play his current game/system.

The system? Heroes Unlimited. I'd rather sit home and do nothing than play that steaming pile of turd.
 

Wombat

First Post
I suppose ultimately it would depend just how badly I disliked System X, but most likely I'd go with the GM -- truly good GMs are hard to find!. And, as I know from personal experience, this can make all the difference -- I don't like the system GURPS, but I had a buddy who ran a really rocking campaign using that system. It was a matter of finding someone who made the system get out of the way of the game. ;)

I have little to no "system loyalty"; in the past year I have played D&D 3.Wombat, Ars Magica, NWoD Changeling, and Spirit of the Century. For me, it is rarely the system that makes the game. It is the GM, coupled with the right players and the right setting.
 

Gothmog

First Post
I've bowed out of three groups where there was a great GM, but the gaming was so bad, I actually dreaded going. In two of those cases, the gaming was bad mostly because of the system- it left an unsatisfying play experience. In one case, the other players were psycho, and better not to game than to deal with them.

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.
 

Wisdom Penalty

First Post
Vegepygmy said:
Maybe a hyperbolic example will illuminate things for you.

I'm the greatest DM in the world. We're going to play a game using the following system: it's just like D&D/WFRP/Exalted/whatever you like to play, except that every time your character does anything, you also roll 1d6. On a 1-5, I kick you in the nuts as hard as I can. On a 6, I don't.

Since my greatness as a DM is infinitely more important than the system, you should be totally up for playing in my game...right?

OK. You got me. I would not game in a group - even with a "great DM" - if said DM leveled a kick at my nuts 88% of the time on my turn.

Now...if he hit my nuts, I may be sufficiently impressed enough to stick around.

They don't call me Wisdom "Pair o' d4s" Penalty for nothing.

WP
 

RFisher

Explorer
I voted “Yes, but I'd keep my opinions to myself.” That’s not completely true, though. I’d share my opinions, but I wouldn’t be trying to convince the GM to do things my way.

My philosophy:

The hobby—for me—is about hanging out with friends first. If my friend wants to run something, I’m in.

What makes this hobby special is the GM as living rulebook. Therefore, I see no GM vs. the rules conflict. The GM is the rules.

I believe the GM should be allowed to pick the system he runs. Which, I suppose, is a natural consequence of the previous point.

I think players should be able to play without any knowledge of the rules. The player speaks in everyday terms. The GM translates that into the rules system. The GM translates the results back into everyday terms. (Of course, since the GM is the rules, there’s often really very little “translation”.)
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
The question is: would you play in the campaign and why? And how would you cope playing this RPG?

In my experience, there's few systems so bad that a Good GM and players cannot make it fun. And, there's no system so good that the game cannot be ruined by a bad GM and players. With a good group, one does not need to "cope with" playing the game, even if it isn't your absolute favorite.

If I already know the GM is good with other systems, I expect I'd try them with a system that isn't my favorite, too. Mind you, I don't have a single favorite system that I really stick to in the first place.
 

Griego

First Post
I would play unless it was some infamously bad rule system, the worst of the worst. I can get used to almost any system; if I don't like it at first I just keep pounding away until I do find something in the rules I can get into. :)
 

Faraer

Explorer
Can't see why I'd single out the ruleset from several more important elements this outstanding GM is deciding on.
Life is tooo short to play usuing a system that I might despise or not like for that matter.
I think it's too short to spend despising RPG systems.
IMHO, if the GM is really good you barely notice the rules.
I'd class that as basic competence -- assuming the GM is going for that. If it's the kind of campaign that foregrounds the rules, then I'd probably stay away, but that's an issue of play style rather than individual ruleset, and I probably wouldn't think a GM who did that was outstanding.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top