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

[BryonD]

I'd play a one shot without a doubt.
A campaign is much less certain.

I agree completely that a great GM makes a good game. But a "good" game alone doesn't make it be the best possible option I have. Depending on the specific system in question, I could easily see myself have better alternatives.

 

[El Mahdi]

I voted: Yes, not happy but I'd buy the books - but only because this is the closest option.

I may not prefer the system, but I would be happy. For me, it's about the game rather than the rules - IF (and that's a big IF) I knew the DM was really good and the game/story was going to be worth it.

If the DM wasn't that good, then I'd take a pass on the whole game. There was a time where I'd have played the game, just in order to be in a game (any game). I'm more discriminating today. I don't get as many chances to play anymore, so I prefer quality over quantity.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Nope, system does matter to me. Life is tooo short to play usuing a system that I might despise or not like for that matter.

Life is also too short to not game with friends because of a rules system.

Awesome GM = me playing anything.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There aren't enough good games out there that I would lose one over an system I didn't like.

 

[Serendipity]

Yes. Some of my best RPG experiences have been thus. This doesn't mean I'd buy any books though. Consequently, I opted out of the ticky boxes; none of them really fit.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'm a role-player, not a rules-player, so I stick with my DM in such an instance.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Life is also too short to not game with friends because of a rules system.

Awesome GM = me playing anything.

For you obviously, but I like the systems that I like. Simple as that. The systems that I don't care for I avoid, I dont care if the "BEST DM IN THE WORLD" is running them. At this point in my life I'd rather do something I enjoy than something that I know that I wont. 4 hours is a lot of time to spend doing something that may be full of SUCK. Friends or no. Believe it or not friends do not automatically make things that you don't like doing better.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

Looking at it from the other side. I consider myself an acceptional DM (An conceited to boot!). At the end of 3.5 and going into 4E we took a little break from fantacy and went into the nWoD. We played a few sessions of Vampire: The Requiem. I designed the best adventure I could, having not run the new system before at all, and making constant refferences to the old WoD.

The players ended up calling it quits and begging for D&D. They just didn't like the system at all and couldn't get into the game whatsoever because of it.
They assured me that the story was excelent, and they liked what was happening in the "world" they just couldn't grasp the nature of the game, and wanted to get back into somthing more familiar.

I had no problem getting back into DnD even with the new edition. They got right into things immediately. The story is great, the gameplay is fluid, and the combats, though getting longer and more grind-y, they still love what I put forth.

So the system DOES have alot to do with what players do and do not like. Or at least what MY players do and do not like.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'd at least give the system a shot, for the sake of diplomacy. But I'm not buying the book unless I have a real change of heart. If I really don't like the system, so much that I can't enjoy the campaign as a result, I'll bow out until Ultimo GM comes back to his senses.

TS

 

[Ulrick]

There's been some questions about the selection of responses, my apologies if they seem strange. Here's my explanation:

In my 20 years of gaming, I've discovered that the main reason why people don't try a new system is because they don't want to spend the money on new books. At least, that's what people consistently tell me whenever I want to run a new system.

People told me this back in 1990s when I wanted to try MERPs, instead of 2e.
I got the same excuse with the coming of 3e, again with 3.5e (though I can't blame them--even I was annoyed with a revision coming only three years after 3e), and again with 4e.

(Heck, I got 'booed' for even showing the 4e books at a meeting, once--if you remember that thread).

Last spring I got the same reason when I wanted to run a 1e game--and I was like "WHAT!?! You can get the PHB for like $5 in some places!"

Overall, I'm just interested in what people had to say. Because I've found that an RPG system has more influence in attracting players than I first thought. As I've mentioned in another thread, I've watched a 20 player game ensue because the DM was great (though obviously incredibly flustered because he didn't turn people away).

This was back when 3e was first released and I joined a gaming club. While this 20 player 2e game went on I was down the hall in another room barely able to scare up players for my 3e. The DM of the 20 player game gave me the go ahead to syphon off some players. IIRC, he even vouched that I was a good DM. Back then I had 11 years under my belt as gamer--mostly a DM. I usually ran a weekly game. This didn't matter, people didn't want to buy the books to a system that they didn't like.

Heck, they didn't even want to try 3e.

Therefore, I sat behind a DM screen with no players and the DM with 20 players gained insanity points even though he wasn't playing Call of Cthulu. Eventually, he burned out and 15-20 players were left without a DM, but none of them wanted to play 3e. As a test, I offered to run a one-shot 2e game and I got players. Amazing.