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

[Umbran]

Why are you blaming the GM for the rules of the game?

Because in RPGs, there is a 30-year-long tradition of house-rules. It is part of the GM's job to interpret and occasionally edit the rules of the game to suit his tastes and group. To be "great", a GM must be great at this, too.

While I don't expect a great GM to be a full-on game designer who writes his own system. I do expect a great GM to either edit on the occasional egregious failure point, or to choose a system that does not (for his group) have such points. No "great" GM is so shackled to the chosen rules to actually implement them in the way you described.

So, basically, you uncovered a large part of the reason why I say that few games are so ugly that a good GM and group cannot make them fun - because they won't play them as written.

 

[Dragonbait]

Absolutely, but I wouldn't buy the book(s) for it.

This was put into practice when my favorite GM decided to run a Shadowrun campaign.

 

[Paxanadu]

Too bad the poll is lacking what I would answer:

"Yes, a super GM can make even a crappy RPG fun and interesting!"

"Yes, but I wouldn't buy any books, or only the absolute minimum."

Keeping an open mind is important!

Pax

 

[sjmiller]

For me, it is not just the GM or the game system that makes the difference if I play or not. It is also the other players, the genre of the game, when we play it, and where we play it. Now, I will admit that who is running the game and what system they are using makes a big difference, they are not the only factors in deciding to play. I have had to bow out of games that I loved because it was not easy for me to make it to the game on the days we played or locations. I've also bowed out of games because I just couldn't play RPGs with certain people.

I am not a big fan of the dark, angst-ridden genre of games. So, even if my favorite GM was running my favorite game system, I still would not play in the game if that is the type he wanted to run.

I am a fan of space opera style science fiction games. A good GM could use a game system I am not terribly fond of and I would still give the game a try.

For me, I think the order of priority tends to be what genre is the game; who is running the game; who is playing; and what game system is being used.

 

[Greg K]

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

Heroes Unlimited and Foundation are the two games that convinced me that DND style leveled classes, Armor as AC to hit, hit points per level, etc. are horrible for super hero rpgs.

 

[Scribble]

I'd play the game. This has happened to me before.

I have a friend who really likes RIFTS... I'm not a huge fan of the system. When he wants to run it though I'm usually game. I've never gotten any of the books though.

I think as others have said, it might be because I game with friends, and not really with "strangers."

 

[billd91]

It really depends on a number of factors including the genre of the game. I don't, for example, play Vampire with my friends despite us all playing D&D together too. There, the genre matters. I don't like Vampire so no matter who the GM is, I'm not interested in playing.
But if the difference is between Mutants and Masterminds and Champions and genre is supers, I'll play either.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Why are you blaming the GM for the rules of the game?

Because in RPGs, there is a 30-year-long tradition of house-rules. It is part of the GM's job to interpret and occasionally edit the rules of the game to suit his tastes and group. To be "great", a GM must be great at this, too.

Okay, but then all you're doing is pulling a "No True Scotsman."

The question was, would you play in a campaign run by a great DM using a rules system you really don't like? And your answer is: "Yes, but only if the DM changes the rules system...because no true great DM would use lousy rules."

In other words, we both agree that there are some rules systems that are, if unaltered, so bad that even a great DM can't rise above them -- he must change them instead. Having agreed on that basic point, the only question then is: where do we draw the line? How many rules have to be changed and to what extent?

I would guess that I'm less tolerant of bad rules than most other people, but the difference is simply one of degree.

 

[Umbran]

Okay, but then all you're doing is pulling a "No True Scotsman."

As I noted - the tradition of house-ruling is very strong. I have, in decades of gaming, never played under any GM who ran a game strictly as written. Every single one edited, expurgated, or otherwise ran a bit loose with things. Not because the game was unplayable without alteration, but just because they preferred ti that way.

So, insofar as "No true Scotsman" fails to breathe, yes, I'm pulling that. However, I don't think that taking note of one of the most common things GMs do is somehow slighting or dodging the question.

In other words, we both agree that there are some rules systems that are, if unaltered, so bad that even a great DM can't rise above them -- he must change them instead.

Not quite: I can imagine a system that bad - that's not the same as agreeing that such a game exists in print. I do not have personal experience with any that fit the description. I am leaving out HOL and FATAL, as I classify both as works of satire, rather than actual games.

If we assume such a game exists (it would not be hard to create one, honestly) I am unconvinced that anyone I'd call a "great" GM would ever choose to run with one it the first place.

If you must insist, "But what if he did?!? What then?!?" that's when I say they'd alter the system. But, I also think I have to pull the "too hypothetical" card. This feels like we are getting into the "Well, assume you *could* time travel..." kind of questions, so divorced from practical reality as to not be informative.

I don't personally know of any commonly available system that is so bad that I feel it absolutely could not be run straight and still be fun. I know of a bunch for which alteration would quickly make them more fun, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'd play, and be happy to play, but I wouldn't buy the books.

So there is no poll option for me

Cheers!