Just tossing up another general discussion topic. In your experience, what's more important to having fun while playing Pathfinder: the mechanics and tools of the game itself, or the other people sitting across the table from you?
Personally, I find that the group dynamic is usually more important, and the rules are mainly significant in how they impact that. Rules debates or rules so unbalanced that they cause problems for the players will damage fun. Otherwise, it's all about the players and the GM. A good set of players with a good GM can have a ton of fun with any set of rules, or even just by playing freeform.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The People. Played dozens of games over the years, and the group always makes or breaks it.
+1 on it being the people. With good enough people, I think it would not be a hazard to say I could hold my nose and play 4th Edition. With bad people (and I have certainly run into Evil players(*)), everything goes bad.
(*)Who for some reason most commonly like to list themselves as Chaotic Neutral, even back in 1st Edition times.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The people. Always the people. Playing a well-designed game with bad people is...sometimes okay, but nowhere near as fun as even a mediocre game with great folks.
That said, rules are still relevant, just not as much as players. A game with well-balanced rules can take what would otherwise be a mediocre GM and some good players and make an amazing game, while a terribly designed game can leech all the fun out of the experience of actually playing the game unless the GM makes a really heroic effort to overcome it.
For example, let's take spotlight time:
A player who's a spotlight hog and insists on everything being focused on them while refusing to let other players shine is awful, and much worse than most rules problems. But a game with well-balanced rules can help to restrain such a player, while a game with poor balance between certain options can enable them and even make players who had no intent to do this do something very like it accidentally. Of course, if it's accidental, it's fixable with a bit of effort (ie: character rebuilding or the like) while something intentional is much less fixable.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to see good game and bad people look at many PFS tables...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a lot easier to houserule away a particular game mechanic I don't like.
Just a tad more difficult to deal with an unplesant player.
I am not sure it makes sense to divine it like that. The rigth folks Can make even the worst game fun. And no amount of rules Can make playing with the wrong guys fun. But you need both good folks and game rules that support the story if you want it to work. There is no sense in saying it is either good rules or good People and you Can only have one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, people is pretty obvious. EVERYTHING is more fun with a good group of friends.
I think a more valid question would be "How MUCH more important is peple than the game itself?"
To which I'd say still a hell of a lot, but a flawed game will eventually get tiresome even with the best of friends.
The people. We have played some really stupid games and had fun, and tried some acclaimed systems and been bored to tears. But the rules must fit the people or be hammered until they do so. If you try to fit the people to the rules, you get grief.
For example, we generally liked the Traveller setting. We also hated the Classic, MegaTraveller, and New Era rules, and couldn't be bothered with anything after that.
There is one caveat in advocating people over the rules. Tightly bound groups can be resistant to new players or new rules, and lack of either may cause stagnation. When the game stagnates you either lose players and risk splintering the entire group, or you change systems, at least temporarily.
+1 to people. Regardless of the game, if the people you are playing with enjoy the game you are running or are playing alongside with, it makes the experience all the more enjoyable. Having terrible players or terrible role-players grinds away at your sanity and patience. Heaven forbid if your stuck with a bad DM. I could go on, but the horror stories must be forgotten.
While both are important, the people are far more so. A bad system can leave even a good group with a sour taste in their mouth but at least you still have the option to play other things together. A bad group, though, will tire of playing anything together, no matter how good.
The people are much more important.
I can at least have an 'ok' time if not a great time with a really bad game system, if I like the people.
I am unlikely to have any enjoyment at all with the perfect game system, if I don't like the people.
Just tossing up another general discussion topic. In your experience, what's more important to having fun while playing Pathfinder: the mechanics and tools of the game itself, or the other people sitting across the table from you?
Personally, I find that the group dynamic is usually more important, and the rules are mainly significant in how they impact that. Rules debates or rules so unbalanced that they cause problems for the players will damage fun. Otherwise, it's all about the players and the GM. A good set of players with a good GM can have a ton of fun with any set of rules, or even just by playing freeform.
The people matter more because they influence how you play the game, and enjoy a session, AND they influence what games you're reasonably able to play.
I think you need people and then a game. they're both important but you can do stuff with good people without a game, but you can't do stuff with bad people even with a game. so. seems pretty obvious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is "snacks" an option?
Is "snacks" an option?
Didn't your den lizard ever tell you not to play with your food?
People. I love Pathfinder, but I have been in groups where it worked, and groups where it didn't. There isn't a cooperative Tabletop game I can think of that's amazing enough to save a bad table, especially when someone talks about how the good points of Nazi Medical Science for 15 minutes before the game starts. (This happened.)
I'm just in it for the brains.
|
Something to note, a game is just a mechanism for transforming effort into fun. A good game is an efficient mechanism for this, so that you and your friends can experience each other as people and performers.
Pathfinder isn't the most efficient mechanism by a long shot, but has enough working gears that even when you aren't at the table you can play with character ideas and adventure building: the best part is anticipating and discussing this stuff with your friends.
Is "snacks" an option?
Snacks are always an option!
The people.
80% people, 20% rules.
I have played bad games that failed due to horrible rules... which is sad, because a lot of work went in to setting design. :(
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you've ever played the same game with two different groups of people and had different amounts of fun, then the people are important to you.
If you've ever played two different games with the same group of people and had different amounts of fun, then the game/rules are important to you.
Definitely the people. We bbq before games, we celebrate players' birthdays, sometimes we drink together during games (those are interesting games!) and often we do social things together outside of gaming.
Because it is more social than goal oriented gaming for us, each new player is vetted for personality fit ie would we be friends with them if there was no gaming?
It's a lot easier to houserule away a particular game mechanic I don't like.
Just a tad more difficult to deal with an unplesant player.
"I'm thinking about adding a new house rule where Chuck isn't allowed to be such a prick, what do you guys think?"
I guess that's less effective than saying you'll let slings use bow only feats.
While the people are important, I just got into an argument with one of my friends over this exact issue.
I like my gaming group and I like my friends. But two of my friends tend to skip game. A lot. Effectively if one of them can't make it for some reason, the other one won't show up, which means we have to cancel game for the week. Sometimes it's for legitimate issues - have to babysit the nephews as a favor to a sibling, have to attend a wedding, they're sick. You know, life issues that come up. The other half the time it's because one of them was too hung over (we have a noon-1 start time). Or because one of them would rather play video games. And they don't bother to inform the rest of us about any of this until everyone else has shown up for game and we're waiting on them.
So for a while there I was so upset about this that I invited new people to the game. And it just wasn't as fun. I missed my other friends (when they did show up). So we've talked it out a bit and now they're doing a lot better about at least informing the rest of us ahead of time.
But now that we're back together gaming again, a new problem has occurred - what is the point of the game? While the point is to have fun and enjoy it, I also *really* want to actually finish an AP. Our group has started 6 different AP's and have had such a slow pace that we barely get through book 2-3 after a year of playing almost every week. So when game starts, I want to buckle down and play the game. Minimize off-topic talk, roleplay and roll some dice. Focus on the game. I get frustrated when we're not making progress. For example, we started playing skulls and shackles, and the first session got us through the end of Day 2; I was very concerned with this incredibly slow pace because I didn't want to spend 10 sessions to get to Day 21 (which could be 3-6 months of play based on how often game gets cancelled) and actually make it to level 2. But my two friends mentioned above were not concerned with this at all, because from their perspective the point is to hang out with friends and have fun. It doesn't matter how much you go off-topic or how slow the game is or how many sessions you spend at any given level. (Fortunately, at the end of session 2 we made it to the end of Day 8, so it looks like we're only going to spend 3-5 sessions at level 1, or about a month of play).
So here we have a balance of the importance of the people playing the game, but at the same time there's an importance of actually playing the game and making progress through the adventure.
I want to play the game. I also want to hang out with my friends. But when it's time for game, let's actually play it, ok? I'm ignoring my wife and kids for 4-6 hours a week for this game and I don't want to waste that time *not playing* and instead talking about something that we could talk about later on IM or text.
Depends. In face-to-face, definitely the people. It's sitting down to spend quality time with your friends, moving into a shared world of fantastic story where you have awesome power, and get to murderkill people who looks at you funny. Together. Or even just make sure you get together once in a while and catch up and goof off in each others company, while the game takes a backseat.
Pbp is mainly for the game, and to explore interesting characters and story-arcs.
When you play face-to-face with strangers, I imagine the game moves more into focus, but I don't do that, so I wouldn't know.
If you decide to disregard the wise advice of the poster above, here is a link to an indepth review of the system for your convenience.
I don't know why it gets such a bad rap. Anal circumference is crucial information sadly lacking from most RPGs.
I normally would've said "the people."
However, I'm currently so f%!$ing sick of Shadowrun that I'd be willing to play anything else with anyone else.
I'd play FATAL with Hitler, Goebbles, Ike Turner, and that one dick from High School. Anything to get away from Shadowrun for a long, long time.
So I guess both are important.
If you don't know what FATAL is, don't google it
Would you play RaHoWa, though? I'm trying to gauge just how desperate you are here.
It's easy to say "the people", and yes, it surely does the absolute greatest part of it.
But if you're playing something you can't like, even the best people can't save the game for you. You'll want to either switch to a different game or stop gaming entirely and use your time for something else. And doing so, you may become the "bad one" for your fellows, but if you can't like one thing, you can't be forced to play it.
I'd say people when it comes to having the most fun, but I think a bad game is more likely to make me have the least fun. Bad people will do that, sure, but they'd have to be REALLY bad.
I can also think of one situation where I was playing an early draft of a friend's homebrew system with my usual gaming crew that was so bad I faked having food poisoning to get out of it. Only time in my life I've done that.
Always the people. I've been blessed in my life with a great group of like-minded people to play with. Unfortunately, the ones that stand out in my opinion are the ones that we didn't mesh well with.
People...but some games can test friendships.
Always question whether you want to be friends with a guy that owns a copy of F.A.T.A.L. You might not want to be near that person, since you could be suspected as an accomplish.
People...but some games can test friendships.
Always question whether you want to be friends with a guy that owns a copy of F.A.T.A.L. You might not want to be near that person, since you could be suspected as an accomplish.
Munchkin tests friendships. :D