I would agree with the original post in terms of priority, but not sure of the percentages. The group or a good GM can make a cruddy system ok. If you don't have a good group, then the GM doesn't matter. Also a good GM can overcome a cruddy system but not a bad group. I played RIFTS with a great GM. I think RIFTs has Tons of flaws but she worked around them and made it fun.
The reason my group plays different games is that different systems are inherent to the GM. Same as where a campaign is played. I played 1st and 2nd ed ADnD and each GM in the group had a different world that fit them. One liked forgotten realms, one liked greyhawk and another completely made up his own.
I also have problems with being able to dodge bullets (using reaction) and the magic system in general. The mages I've seen played never take drain. I think 2nd edition had it better in those respects.
I have basically everything for AD&D 2e (except for adventures) when 3 came out I was gifted with the core 3 books, and never bought anything for 3, yet I ran many 3 games. (Hasbro didn't get any $$ from me LOL)
As for Sci-fi genre games I find that I shop around for interesting supplements and do my own conversions between all the various systems.
So, I'd agree with you, just get the core book(s) and you can use all your old stuff to sup. the new stuff
I still use some of my 1e stuff -- it was so well write it works for any fantasy like game
I would say the GM is 45% of a Game and how the GM gets along with each member of the group, Knowledge of their own Game and skilled use of thier world/setting is the most important part. followe3d closely by group dynamic say 35% of the fun. but I will put up with 1 or 2 I can't stand if the GM is Good, the story interesting, and I get along with the rest of the players. In a Really good game I won't even try to kill the other players I can't stand. and finally the story/system is about 20% If you don't have a story that can draw you in and keep you involved the other flaws in your group will become all the more apparent. some may think I have over stated this last element but play a game with your friends without any dice see how well you like them afterwards.
yep... have to agree with you here... my % might be more along the lines of 80%/10%/10%
I believe that the GM is a part of the group, however the GM's XP does count for something and so does the system.
If you run a crappy system and still everyone had fun -- that's a good group!
I'd have to agree, the group is the biggest part of it. Without players that get along well and have play styles that work well together, the game is going to fall apart regardless of anything else.
The GM is probably #2, while he can put a lot of influence into the game its really the players that steer things. That said we've all played for good GM's and bad GM's and know the different they can make in the game.
The system is the least important in having a great game night. Like you said its a background world and rules. So long as the rules are balanced well enough, then the rest of the fluff and lore can be rewritten how ever fits you best.
Glad it was helpful!
Sascha - Yup - I explained in a detailed email but the very next game session, someone tried but failed the role.
SDJ - That rocks. I'm so doing that.
Way back in the days when I GMed Shadowrun, there was someone who abused the whole magic system and specifically Spirits.
What I did with him was have the Spirits get a little miffed that he was calling them for every little thing and so they started refusing to help him. At one point they ignored him for a week. The player did get upset, but after a while he stopped "wasting the Spirits time" and played his character better.
If I recall, we made a loose house rule that gave a incremental bonus/penalty depending on the frequency and reason for the use of the Spirits. It worked out pretty well and even had some people conserving their use to have a big bonus for when they needed it most.
Hope this helped!
Sounds like you and your players have differing views on the extent of spirit services. Have you talked to them about it?
I make nacho's and quesadillas for people cause they're quick and easy. No matter how much prep time I have for a game it never seems like enough though so if you can cook a meal for everyone and run a good game props for you .
I like anything with the suffix "of doom" added
I forgot to conclude this blog. The players loved it. And decided that they would like to keep the points coming this way. Not all the cards were rewarded since many depend on the scenario but this kept folks very focused on the game.
LOL - A "through the looking glass" or "down the rabbit hole" game eh!
Thank you guys for the thoughts. This guy was in his 40's which is why I guess I was so disappointed. Older folks I guess I expect more adult reactions from - at least out of game.
BIG THANKS - I went to the hospital last night after throwing out my back. Got a pain killer that knocked me out for 12 hours. So this was nice to read now that I am conscious again.
Now I'm working on my game now. Should be interesting being on pain killers.
Malruhn's pretty spot-on (though I'd replace "playing styles" with "social contract"). And yeah, it's a player's responsibility to gauge if they're willing to agree to an existing social contract, and bow out respectfully if they're not. Sorry to hear this wasn't the case.
I always think my storyline is the best thing going and am quite perplexed when my players don't enjoy it as much as I do.
I think it's quite a credit to the DM when she can weave in a character's backstory into the campaign. I don't ignore it either and sometimes it really bugs me. I want the story to go one way but my players choose a different road.
I feel your pain. With as much effort as you put into this story I hope that turkey at least chipped in for your pizza.
Nothing puts a hair up my nose like planning and running a good adventure and the group can't even pick up my pizza tab.
Keep the faith, BGG. They should be lining up to join your game!
I've had a few of that ilk, count yourself lucky that he didn't stay longer and potentially ruin your game.
It can happen... it did to me... twice! Once our group bent over backwards trying to adjust our style, but after a dozen games we weren't having fun anymore and the newbie was still complaining... goodbye to him and back to the way the others enjoyed gaming.
Now a days I try for a few games, but I'm with Gailen, if you don't like it, leave.
I also understand Malruhn's point and when introducing newbies I try to keep things clear, but I don't always manage it.
And I know I've got blind spots -- which is why I constantly pester my players for feedback and suggestions.
Just keep at it and don't sweat the small stuff
After re-re-reading the original blog post, it may just be incompatible playing styles - something I am dealing with in my campaign right now. This kid MAY have been used to, "If it speaks about evil, it must be evil, so kill it," playing, and this NPC was sounding "evil"... at least toward women.
Just because your crew knows that you play an adult game, did this new guy? Did he REALLY know it was an adult game? Did he know what YOUR definition of "adult" was? I've played some "adult" games where the PC's were expected to draw swords and KILL the bad guys for doing their heinous crimes... and some "adult" games where female slaves licked you clean after you went potty... and everything in between. He MAY have been used to nerfed campaigns that were all Care-Bear - and his definition was killing bad guys. The NPC MAY have sounded "bad" to him.
And as for your question about which is worse... I would have to say that it depends on the situation. Was it a PC that was burned alive? How is this different from a fireball from an unseen opponent?
This kid MAY have seen the NPC getting drunk and mouthing off as "evil" while the PC that was burned alive "deserved it." Just today in my game, the group captured a bandit, and a CG character told him that he had a choice - talk or die... so the guy talked. Then, after he spilled his guts, the CG character announced that he would let him live - that he would cut the bandit's hands off and cut out his tongue - all so he could make a new start of life. Yes, he was serious. In the past, I've seen LG characters that attempted to rationalize the purging of future Orc armies by killing the females and Orc kids. Definitions of "evil" varies - and when WE are doing it, since WE are on the "good" side, anything we do may well be justified if we describe it properly.
The kid may have seen what he thought was "evil" and wanted to kill it - and quit out of frustration.
Hey, when I've had players that wanted to kill the princess they were rescuing because they couldn't be positively sure it was a real princess and not a Demon Lord - and still expected to receive the reward offered for recovering her body - yeah, there are some VERY different definitions of "evil"...
Actually, the NPC right at the beginning got nearly disowned and took a strike by his parents for standing up to them over a female PC at the beginning of the day. His drunken ramblings were vocal not physical. He warned the males that females only break your heart. It's a violent future world.
I do give warning that I run an adult game. 100% agreement on the medieval worlds and all.
Here's the question: Which is worse - getting drunk and mouthing off (NPC) OR burning someone alive while they sleep (PC)?
I appreciate the moral support.