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

[Wisdom Penalty]

I think [life is] too short to spend despising RPG systems.

Amen, Brother Faraer. Amen.

Or, in contemporary terms: Hell yeah! *snap*

WP

 

[Kralin Thornberry]

I'd play, and make the best of it. I play in rpg games to hang out with my friends, and if he's a really good DM, even better.

Shoot, I still play in some systems I don't really enjoy, but do so because I'm there to socialize and be with my friends, and hopefully have a good time as well.

 

[Umbran]

Since my greatness as a DM is infinitely more important than the system, you should be totally up for playing in my game...right?

While I do note that the example is hyperbolic, I do have to say - a GM who regularly makes attempts to cause real physical pain to players doesn't count as "great", thus sort of nullifying the example.

Now, perhaps we can draw the line in some other way - the DM is actually good at what he does, but in order to make it to games, he needs a ride. Every week, an hour each way. And you're the only one with a car...

There we go - put a burden in there that isn't actually related to the quality of performance, and it comes out a little bit better.

 

[Spatula]

The question is: would you play in the campaign and why? And how would you cope playing this RPG?

Sure, but I didn't vote in the poll because as others mentioned it's missing an option ("yes but won't buy the books"). I would let the DM know what I don't care for and maybe try to convince him or her to use a different system for the genre etc. etc. (for example I don't think d20 is a good fit for CoC) so I wouldn't be keeping my opinion to myself.

That said, "cope" seems like a strange word to me. Maybe it's just because I love games of all stripes, but I can't see any RPG as being actually something that you would need to cope with. They're all games, and all meant to be fun.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I think it's too short to spend despising RPG systems.

Since we're going for snark here instead of taking what I say at face value, I'll just add this and hope you get the point of my inital statement.

I don't spend alot of time despising systems, I simply don't play them no matter who's running them. If someone decides to run a Palladium System game, namely RIFTS, I don't care who the DM is I wont play because I dont like the system OR the setting. I won't participate in ANY sort of Forgotten Realms game from any edition of D&D, because I cant stand the Realms. I won't participate in a Fuzion game, when I could actually play full on HERO instead because I can't stand the system. I don't begrudge any one else here thier choices, not even of 4E which I think is a good game but also not a game I'm interested in playing. And if given the choice between playing a game that I like playing with a mediocre Dm and a game that I cant stand with a GREAT DM, they kind of even each other out, but the fact that I cant stand a particular system will tip me toward the mediocre DM everytime.

If it's a bad DM running a system that I like, I'd just as soon as NOT PLAY period.

 

[Lanefan]

What's not mentioned is how many (if any) other options exist at the time. In a small town with only one gaming group, you're choices are merely play or not play, as listed above. In a larger center, with numerous different groups, one has the further choice of continuing to play, but in a different game; and this changes the decision-making dynamics quite a bit.

For me, I'd at first play but try to convince the DM of the error of her ways; and if it wasn't fun I'd bail - but keep in touch with the remaining players to find out if it improved over time.

Lanefan

 

[Graybeard]

I would play the rules system with the DM. After several sessions, if the rules are really that bad and having a good DM doesn't help your enjoyment of the game, then I would say something to the DM. Give the rules a chance under a really good DM. Who knows, you may end up liking the system after all.

 

[Vegepygmy]

While I do note that the example is hyperbolic, I do have to say - a GM who regularly makes attempts to cause real physical pain to players doesn't count as "great", thus sort of nullifying the example.

Why are you blaming the GM for the rules of the game? My hyperbolic example was attempting to show that there are some rules systems that are so unenjoyable that even a great GM can't overcome them -- and your response kinda proves my point, since the rules in this case caused you to decide that the GM "doesn't count as 'great,'" when it really doesn't say anything about the GM at all.

Now, perhaps we can draw the line in some other way - the DM is actually good at what he does, but in order to make it to games, he needs a ride. Every week, an hour each way. And you're the only one with a car...

There we go - put a burden in there that isn't actually related to the quality of performance, and it comes out a little bit better.

The problem with the burden in your example is that it isn't related to the rules of the game. But in an effort to appease you, how about this: instead of "roll 1d6 and maybe get kicked in the nuts," the additional rule is: "Every time your character does anything, you (the player) have to give the GM $5.00."

Still want to play? C'mon! The GM is great. So what if the rules aren't so wonderful?

 

[Gentlegamer]

Any GM that is that slavish to the rules isn't a great GM in the first place.

I think that is probably the unspoken assumption of us on the "GM is more important" side.

We don't have to worry about being Rochambeued by the rules. A great GM will correctly ignore that horrible rule. And that's why we play with him.

 

[Dausuul]

I'd play, and buy the necessary books. The only case where I'd refuse to play would be if the GM wanted to run something like FATAL, but that's going above and beyond mere badness. For a run-of-the-mill "system that I think is total crap" - say, RIFTS - I'd suck it up and deal.

Of course, one thing that I consider an absolute requirement for good GMing is a willingness to disregard the rules when the rules produce stupid results. This is where Vegepygmy's examples fall apart for me; a good GM would immediately throw out the rules he's suggesting.