So what is important to you? I have played more game systems than I can easily count; way more than the number of GM's I have played with so I have been wondering; is it the game system and the "world" that is so fun; or do you just play whatever the GM is running and have a good time with that?
I would have to say the second for me; a creative gm who runs a good game can do so in any system, but I have read on these boards various things about "yeah, this game" that bring people out of their closets (MMO's) to play.
There are so many worlds and systems to choose from out there; and i guess we all have our favorites; so I am wondering; is it just the link to something familiar and some givin world development; like say Waterdeep or the City of Greyhawk, that get you excited to play a character that fits into that world; or do you come up with a character concept you want to try and find a world that fits.
This is sort of a GM's personal Homebrew vs some other GM's marketted Homebrew they sell to everyone question. Is it genre? seems to me every system has its advantages and drawbacks; some have a lot of support from lots of published material; some just handle the rules in creative ways. I think most people I know; including myself; bought marketed worlds because of the maps; kinda gives a plug and play feel. But everyone I know has created their own world and mostly runs that as all that other stuff was too available to the masses; it got to be you could play in four different guys Forgotten Realms world or Greyhawk world or whatever. Though GM's differ; still lacked creativity as compared to a homebrew.
So; if a gm says he wants to run his own game and system; are you afraid or intrigued? how many of you have the playtest bug and how many does that take you out of your comfort zone. Hmm, maybe this is a rules lawyer vs pure player question; maybe not.
anyway, if you have a comment I would be interested if your opinion
The GM and players make the game. A given system serves as a framework but you can have great games with a given GM and group in multiple different systems. For example, my former GM (now playing) ran both 3.5 and Rifts at different points and I loved it. Mind you, a good framework (i.e. a well-constructed system) facilitates game play, but you can have a great game without really using the system at all (in a session of intense role-playing we might not even roll skill checks).
For me, it's a question of both - the people and the system - that make for a particularly enjoyable game. While it's true that a good GM and good players can make a less favorable system more enjoyable, that's still not as good when you've got both. Systems will have an influence on how the game plays and put constraints on what can and cannot be done.
Systems matter. People matter.
My expertise and experience in RPGs is nothing compared to that of most of those who will respond, but I can't help but post my opinion.
...I have read on these boards various things about "yeah, this game" that bring people out of their closets (MMO's) to play.
I know of two major reasons why the focus is on the system. One is that the system was written by professionals. GMing must be done by the GM, who is probably not a professional. Potential players might hear "This game system got great reviews. Thousands of people enjoy it." They won't hear "This GM is a great one; he got great reviews."
Which brings me to my second reason, as does your later comment...
So; if a gm says he wants to run his own game and system; are you afraid or intrigued?
Players can feel free to comment on a system. "This game stinks! It shouldn't work like THIS, it should work like THAT." But can you do the same with a GM? Can you tell a GM "You don't know how to GM; you should have done such-and-such?" It was said to me, and my confidence was shattered, taking 9 years to recover. So most people don't make such remarks - at least, not freely.
So if someone says "I'm GMing, you want to play?" you're not likely to have heard reviews of that GM. You'd probably have more knowledge of the system.
Just my 2 cp.
My expertise and experience in RPGs is nothing compared to that of most of those who will respond, but I can't help but post my opinion.
...I have read on these boards various things about "yeah, this game" that bring people out of their closets (MMO's) to play.I know of two major reasons why the focus is on the system. One is that the system was written by professionals. GMing must be done by the GM, who is probably not a professional. Potential players might hear "This game system got great reviews. Thousands of people enjoy it." They won't hear "This GM is a great one; he got great reviews."
Which brings me to my second reason, as does your later comment...
So; if a gm says he wants to run his own game and system; are you afraid or intrigued?Players can feel free to comment on a system. "This game stinks! It shouldn't work like THIS, it should work like THAT." But can you do the same with a GM? Can you tell a GM "You don't know how to GM; you should have done such-and-such?" It was said to me, and my confidence was shattered, taking 9 years to recover. So most people don't make such remarks - at least, not freely.
So if someone says "I'm GMing, you want to play?" you're not likely to have heard reviews of that GM. You'd probably have more knowledge of the system.
Just my 2 cp.
I find this amusing, as I gave many reviews of GMs to other players while in college. It all depends on the community your in. Usually its a "He's an awesome GM, if you get a chance to play in one of his games, do it."
For me, the GM makes the game. Often, for my favorite games, he makes the system too. I vastly perfer to play in homebrew or small scale games over mass market games. It allows for much better worldbuilding and exploration. If I am playing a game like 3.5, I would rather it be in the GM's world. Rip ideas from wherever you have to to make the game your own.
I also prefer my games to run for short times. My favorite games lasted about 8 weeks, playing once a week until the plot was done, the story was told, and the mysteries laid bare. This was an evolution of gaming at college, where games were done in 1 semester, and I miss this style of game now.
I also prefer my games to run for short times.
There was a time when I would have agreed wholeheartedly with this. I STILL feel that, for example, a BOOK series ought to end before it loses that creative spark.
But... a campaign is different. Once you've gone through the trouble of creating characters and a world, you might as well go on. And when the players continue to have fun for years, that's a rare opportunity, and will create memories to cherish forever.
For me, it's a question of both - the people and the system - that make for a particularly enjoyable game. While it's true that a good GM and good players can make a less favorable system more enjoyable, that's still not as good when you've got both. Systems will have an influence on how the game plays and put constraints on what can and cannot be done.
Systems matter. People matter.
The above pretty much says it all for me.
Both. I can't have just one - the people can be fantastic, for example, but if the system sucks... well, I have better things to do with my limited time. And vice versa, obviously.
I believe a great GM can compensate for a poor system but I would rather have a great GM running a great system. If the system clashes with my play style, it becomes too much of a distraction for me.
Since my last post was getting off-topic...
Usually its a "He's an awesome GM, if you get a chance to play in one of his games, do it."
Now that you mention it, I have heard people say that (although I earlier denied it,) but can people go around saying "He's an awful GM?" It would be very bad form to say that. It would be like insulting someone's cooking.
So while I agree that the GM makes the game, it's easier to find objective reviews of the system.
I also prefer my games to run for short times.There was a time when I would have agreed wholeheartedly with this. I STILL feel that, for example, a BOOK series ought to end before it loses that creative spark.
But... a campaign is different. Once you've gone through the trouble of creating characters and a world, you might as well go on. And when the players continue to have fun for years, that's a rare opportunity, and will create memories to cherish forever.
I've been in both, but I prefer mystery games over exploration and world building. World building can go on forever, with your characters growing and changing over time. My current game just started up, and is the 5th or 6th game in the same homebrew world (or more, I'm not sure). I have played in the last 3 games. Thats a lot of fun because you get to see how you change the world.
Shorter games tend to be mysteries of some kind. Its no fun to continue once the mystery is solved, all that is left is for the finale. For me, these games tend to be metaphysical puzzles. Where do you go in a game where you just rewrote the laws of physics to avert Ragnarok using the blood of Prometheus?
Where do you go in a game where you just rewrote the laws of physics to avert Ragnarok using the blood of Prometheus?
Heh. Ever play SquareSoft's Final Fantasy 3? (Or 6, as it was in the original Japanese version.) The heroes spend half the game trying to stop the baddies from unleashing a terrible power... and fail. The world is rent asunder, and the heroes spend the remainder of the game adventuring in a shattered, post-apocalyptic world. Fascinating stuff!
Yes, a world-changing event is perfectly appropriate for a long campaign. Did you know that Pinnacle Entertainment Group's "Evernight" campaign setting was inspired by an adventure where the PCs tried to stop monsters from conquering the world... and failed?
And if the PCs are SUPPOSED to change the world, so much the better!
To be sure, when a professional company changes a setting, it's bad for players who still want to play in the old setting.
But if it's your own world, that's different. I remember getting bored of one campaign I was running, and commenting "I'm running out of ideas for this place. I feel like forcibly teleporting you out of there." And the player replied "I'm fine with that, as long as there are adventures to be had wherever we go." But I didn't. Instead, we just quit the campaign.
Another time, I set a trap to bring the party to another world, but the PCs didn't take the hook. But if they had, oh, the possibilities!
I digress. The truth is that some stories are meant to have an ending, I agree. But with SOME campaigns, you'll never be sure, unless you go on. Like you said, it's a lot of fun because you get to see how you change the world.
|
For me, it's a question of both - the people and the system - that make for a particularly enjoyable game. While it's true that a good GM and good players can make a less favorable system more enjoyable, that's still not as good when you've got both. Systems will have an influence on how the game plays and put constraints on what can and cannot be done.
Systems matter. People matter.
+1. I have had really poor DMs run great systems and do a decidedly good job of it. I have jhad reaally good DMs run really poor systems and get dragged down into the depths of hell by it. I have also had really good DMs turn a poor system into an enjoyable game and had really bad DMs take a system I really loved and make want to make a spear with my character sheet and jab it into my brain.
System is important, but only in the context of the GM and players. If they have expectations and the system defies those expectations, that makes it harder for even a good GM and Players to enjoy. Mind you, this can go either way for a given system depending on the players, so there's no "perfect" system.
Setting is important too in the context of the players. I find that cheesy, genre-bashing, mashup type settings work really well in RPGs. This type of setting allows everyone to play what they want without too much overlap between the characters... something that it is hard to pull off in a setting as coherent as most novels and films.
Obviously, if the GM and the players are on the same page, the game will be good no matter what. If the system throws a curve ball, they're likely to agree on how to adapt or ignore it. 99.9% of problems at the game table are actually interpersonal, not mechanical*.
*I don't believe this give designers a pass on making rules that work, though. But once the game starts, the time for design is over.
Systems matter. People matter.
Yup.
So; if a gm says he wants to run his own game and system; are you afraid or intrigued? how many of you have the playtest bug and how many does that take you out of your comfort zone. Hmm, maybe this is a rules lawyer vs pure player question; maybe not.
I've played a "let's test my new game" game, and I didn't like it. The designer was very proud of his system. Not good.
On the other hand, I've played the "let's play this weird indie game I found" and had a blast. "The Mountain Witch" was a great time, made more so by the fact that my character pulled off his mission.
Dittoing what others have said, I find its both the players and the system. For myself, the players are the bigger of the two influences. Annoying players can turn the best night into a disappointing fiasco.
No matter how great the system and/or setting, a bad GM can ruin it, just as a really good GM can take a mediocre or bad, up to a point, system/setting and make it a fun gaming session. Basically, no matter how good or bad a system is, if the GM has problems getting the rules straight or understanding them, then no one is going to have any fun.
No matter how great the system and/or setting, a bad GM can ruin it, just as a really good GM can take a mediocre or bad, up to a point, system/setting and make it a fun gaming session. Basically, no matter how good or bad a system is, if the GM has problems getting the rules straight or understanding them, then no one is going to have any fun.
I think thats more a problem of the GM getting confused and it bogging down the game. I have played in a nmber of games where that has happened and the GM started making it up rather than trying to find it. GM fiat can be a perfectly fine for the entire system.
|
|
For me, it's a question of both - the people and the system - that make for a particularly enjoyable game. While it's true that a good GM and good players can make a less favorable system more enjoyable, that's still not as good when you've got both. Systems will have an influence on how the game plays and put constraints on what can and cannot be done.
Systems matter. People matter.
This.