For me it's the players not the game

[MNblockhead]

As a DM, having the right group of players is most important and I definitely run games based on what the group is interested in.

As a player, I can enjoy nearly any system and generally have had no issues playing with strangers at conventions, on-line one-shots, Adventurer's League at my FLGS, etc. But I do find that some games really need the right group. Dialect comes to mind. It can be a very moving game with the right game master and group of players. But it is iffy to play at a convention because it is too easy to get people who sign up for it that didn't understand the kind of game it is and ruin the "vibe."

 

[aramis erak]

In the rare occasions I'm not the GM, I am "The game needs to be good rules" and "The GM needs to use the rules well" AND "The story needs to be interesting."
If not all three, I'm outta there.
Players alone? Not enough to compensate for bad rules.
GM misapplying the rules? I get frustrated real quick, and then on to hostile.
GM ignoreing the rules? Straight to hostile.
Story boring, I lose focus.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

For me it's the players, the game, and the synergy between the two.

I'm currently running two groups. One I started out as a 5e group and am currently running what started out as my 4e retroclone (we'll almost certainly return to 5e when the campaign is over). The other I started off with a Blades in the Dark hack and am currently running Stonetop for. And both are good groups with good people - but the thing is three out of five players in each group would have a miserable time in the other game. It's down to the level of mechanics, and the level of chaos my players enjoy. The success-with-consequences mechanics are beloved by some and hated by others as is the level of mechanical complexity.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm also one who doesn't much care about the game itself, I'm in it for the character work and the improv. And thus if I have a table of players who also care about characterization and story and are comfortable creating something out of nothing... the mechanics and dice that give us our prompts can be any which way. Simple, complex, doesn't much matter.

That being said... the more the mechanics and dice align to the tropes and themes of the RPG we are playing and help generate stronger prompts and more creative improvisation... the better it will be. I might not care much about game mechanics, but it's the small part I do care about that tells me I'd rather play Call of C'thulu using the actual CoC rules designed specifically for that genre of game than any port of Call of C'thulu into a d20 and "leveling" type system. D&D is a game that makes best use of levels and the d20, it's not designed for effective CoC survival.

 

[jdrakeh]

Yeah, it's about the players for me, as well. I've been playing in a D&D 5e group for a little over two years now (a few different campaigns) and I'm having fun despite some of the players not knowing how the rules for their characters work. I'm willing to let it go because they're genuinely good folks with a wicked sense of humor who are a ton of fun to play with. For example, in our last campaign, we had a kazoo playing Bard whose player actually brought a little kazoo to game sessions and played it much to everybody's amusement

 

[Lanefan]

For online, it's just the game; 'cause without the game it's just a glorified conference call.

For in-person, it's the people and the game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

That is sort of where I am.

I’m willing to play MOST systems with a group of players I like gaming with. But there are definitely games I dislike enough that I will not RUN regardless of group.