How many sessions do you give a new game?

[Wombat]

It often takes a while for a real shakedown cruise on a new set of rules, especially if only the GM has a copy of the rules themselves.

I usually give a given set of rules 3-5 sessions before writing them off as unplayable, and that also assumes that I have read them extensively and done some pre-game play (test battles, test character creation, etc.).

There are a lot of game systems out there -- I'd hate to feel restricted to one set.

 

[Korgoth]

Maybe I'm an odd bird but I usually only end up gaming with friends, so even if I don't know several people in a group I almost always know the Ref on friendly terms. So I'm inclined to stick with it unless it becomes excruciating. That usually takes more than 4 sessions.

Although, theoretically, I'd bail after the 1st session if it was really lame.

 

[senodam]

3 sessions. It gives the group and I time to get the hang of the mechanics, and setting.
Besides that, if we've put three sessions into something and it's not working for us, then that's time enough to spend on something un-fun.

 

[T. Foster]

One session, or less. If the premise of the game doesn't sound intriguing or I look over the rulebook and am not impressed I'm not likely to play the game at all, no matter how cool the guy who wants to DM it insists it is. If I play it once and don't have fun I'm very unlikely to play it again, unless I really like the other players (which is to say I actually did have fun at the session, but in spite of rather than because of the game being played). There are too many good games out there for me to have much patience with games I don't like.

 

[Crothian]

I don't know. Other people have always given up on a new game faster then I do.

 

[Mallus]

I can honestly say out of the MANY systems I've tried...no system has been so bad that it cuts into my enjoyment.

Same here..

I tend to play D&D simply because of the accessability and proliferance

Yes.

Perhaps I'm a bit strange?

Not at all.

I voted 4 or more, but my real answer would be 'The rules used are all but irrelevant. So what are the people like?'.

When it comes to RPG's, I don't think the rules are the game. The game is something that's built on the fly each session, out of the players, the GM, and the (loose) framework the rules used provide. Of the three, the rules are the least important part. I've been in plenty of enjoyable games with a good DM and fellow players, but lousy rules.

I can't say the same about a game with a good rules, but a lousy DM and players...

 

[xrpsuzi]

Before running a new game, there is usually at least 1 person that is decently familiar with the rules--typically the person going "let's try this out!"-- and they kind of tutor the rest of us for at least 2-3 game sessions. We usually know by the 4th session if we want to keep playing or if it's time to move on.

But if we can't get out of character creation without the rules blowing up in our faces, we don't.

Synnibar flashbacks of Chicago Games Day 4 years ago..... To Matt's credit, he did a great job helping everyone create characters, but it took longer to create them than it took for them to die.

-Suzi

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I voted four sessions; if a new system doesn't hit in that time, it probably isn't for my taste. There are some instant hits, though. Both L5R and SLA Industries are games I loved from the very first session, both in terms of mechanics and settings.

Cheers,