For me it's the players not the game

[billd91]

It's both friends and the game. I don't want to play games I don't like, even with friends. And I don't want to run games that my players won't like. It's why I don't run Call of Cthulhu for the Thursday Night game. Even though I'd love to do so, I have one or two players who don't like it, so I save that for a different group.

 

[payn]

It's been a difficult go for me. My friends are not really gamers. In the past, they have given it a go because they want to hang with me, but they dont have an appreciation for it. I do have a friend who loves gaming, but he is the type that sits down with a Bethesda game and burns down villages for the chuckles cause he just wants the world to burn. He has no intention of following a theme or immerse in a game for its own sake.

So, its gotten to the point I would rather just kick back with some records and drinks on a Friday night instead with my friends. For gaming purposes, i've had to purposely seek out like minded individuals and form a gaming group.

 

[Umbran]

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 agree. There are few games that cannot be a lot of fun with the right group, and no games that cannot be ruined by the wrong group.

 

[Willie the Duck]

There's a couple of threads around along the lines of 'who decides what you play?', 'my players are glad to be back to playing 5E', and 'how quickly did you bounce off a system?'.

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'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 dunno. Outside of maybe FATAL or something, I think I'd probably enjoy most TTRPGs as long as the GM is enthused about it and reasonably competent (they don't have to be a genius) and the other players aren't actively ruining it.

I think that, in general, the socializing and players is the primary thing. I think that's likely true for most gamers, in general and on the forums (it's just harder to talk about the players here, since you haven't met them and explaining how that twinkle David gets in his eye when he rolls D12s really enhances the game is a significant challenge as a writer, so we end up doing #-of-angels-on-pinheads discussions over rules minutiae).

That said, I would rather play chess with Joe than checkers; and if we're going to play Monopoly with Katie, we are not doling out fees collected when you land on free parking, because I want this game to end at some point. Same is true of the game systems. The system matters, just not as much as the people one is playing with (and any number of other factors).

For many groups, it also isn't as stark as Fatal* vs anything else. I would only play highly RP-requiring games like Blades in the Dark with some players, and some highly numbers-tracking games like Eclipse Phase, Hero System (with Power Pools), or even Shadowrun with others. I say that because, like that never-ending Monopoly game, someone isn't going to have fun, and if the gaming experience is about the people and hanging out with them, them not having fun is something I want to avoid.
*RahoWa, Myfarog, etc.

So, in the end, I think it is an important reminder that the players and the playing of the game is more important than the rules minutiae, particularly compared to how much of the forum discussion covers such things, that doesn't mean that the game, the rules, the overall system isn't going to matter as well -- it just receives disproportionate focus.

 

[GrimCo]

Although both game and players are important, for me, it more who i'm playing with and less what i'm playing. There are 6 of us in group, one of them is my younger brother, others are close friends i know for 10-20 years. Also, 3 of us rotate as DMs, and although we all use same system (5e D&D), we have different styles and setting preferences. One DM likes his epic high fantasy, other likes more YA urban fantasy but in medieval setting and i'm more grimdark horror guy. At this point in our lives, it's more of a pretext to gather around and spend Sunday morning hanging out, although we do like to play, but sometimes we end up not playing cause we end up discussing some topic.

I played with other group PF for nearly 5 years. It was pure Monty Haul hack&slash, more like a wargame with splashes of role play here and there. I don't particularly enjoy that play style for long campaigns, but i became good friends with those guys. We would spend sometimes half the session discussing various topics unrelated to games ( politics, economics, tech, bitching about work since we all are either mechanical or electrical engineers with one architect added for variety). I came for the game, but stayed for the people.

Even way back in high school, it was always more about hanging out with friends while doing something fun in process. Back than, we would play from 10-17/18 so looong sessions, then brake, go home, shower, change, and go out partying with those same guys. And that group consisted of 2 guys from same school just classroom opposite mine and one guy i was sitting with, only DM went to other school.

I'm lucky in the regard that my group is usually willing to try new games. If i find something that sounds fun, i give them a pitch. If they are interested, we play session or two. Last thing we played was Cairn. I like the game, most of group was ok with it, one player didn't really like it. So we shelved it for possible one shots when he cant play.

 

[The Sigil]

I suspect that for most people, outside of the first couple of sessions with a new group, the game becomes the pretense to get together with people you enjoy rather than being the end in and of itself. Gaming is first and foremost a social activity; "hard core system gamers" are probably more interesting in playing a solo video game, which is available to them at all times and does not require coordinating schedules with others.

 

[payn]

I came for the game, but stayed for the people.

I get that. I played DDO for 5 years because of the folks I met playing it.

 

[overgeeked]

For me, it depends.

If it's my long-time D&D group of friends and family, it's definitely the people not the game.

If it's a game I'm running or playing in with strangers, it's the game first.

 

[Blue]

I have a group that, with a couple of changes, has been playing since the 3ed Player's Handbook came out (before the other two). This group is full of players with compatible styles.

We were playing Scum and Villainy, a Forged in the Dark. I've played some Blades in the Dark and had a really good time with it. But for S&V the extended style of play that the GM was using just conflicted with the rules and I ended up dropping, saying I'd join back up with the group when we switch systems.

So this isn't players. I'm not sure it's system either... but I'm not sure it's not. Basically, the genre expectations that the GM (and the rest of us had) were the wrong fit for the structured play style that Forged in the Dark brings. Was that us having the wrong expectations and forcing the game to do things it wasn't designed around, or the game setting the wrong expectations and not delivering.

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

Mario Kart and most non-turn-based-CRPGs are taxing for me. Of course having two teen-aged sons giving me grief at my complete lack of skill doesn't help.