Your perfect game.

[Shinizak]

Describe for me your perfect game. I don't care how much of a Frankenstein it seems. Just describe that ONE GAME you've always wanted to play.

[Cluedrew]

Does game mean system or campaign? I'm going to go with campaign.

I think my best campaign would generally be serious (people thinking about the setting and the characters as if they were real) but also usually lighthearted (letting those things be kind of silly) punctuated in with the occasional serious or tragic moment. It would also be run by someone else in a system I have finished developing. Something like that.

[Knaight]

I don't have the group for anything too serious in tone, or too bleak, which has kept me from running certain ideas I've had ruminating for a while.

The big one is Galactic Fruit, a space opera campaign based on the various conflicts between United Fruit and various worker organizations, governments, etc. throughout Central America. Except in the space opera equivalent these are planetary scale.

I'd just need a good system for extended resistance conflicts, more practice with sufficiently bleak scenarios and sketchy antagonists, and more research on the historical United Fruit. They lend themselves so well to being some sort of sketchy future corporation, mostly because they're the single worst megacorporation in history that doesn't have "East India Company" in its name somewhere.

[FaerieGodfather]

My White Whale, the campaign I have been trying and failing to run since 1998 and have only finally given up on in the past couple of years.

You take the same group of players, and they make up a party in Planescape and a separate party in Star•Drive and they run two separate campaigns concurrently... except, after a couple of adventures, small parts of each setting start showing up in the other more and more frequently... and then larger parts start showing up, and each party has to work their end of the puzzle to find out why. I was going to tie a bunch of official modules into it, and it was going to be my masterpiece.

The original inspiration for my Shroompunk game-- building from the RPGNet thread-- was an isekai premise where the PCs were relatively normal Earth people gone down the pipes into the Mushroom Kingdom at about the same time as SMB1/SMB3-- sans the Mario Bros-- and they get embroiled in plot between Peach, Bowser, and the Pipefitter's Union.

My perfect system? I'm still working on that, but it'd look a lot like BECMI D&D with the Player's Option rules and a goodly chunk of Dreamscarred Press' Path of War.

[Sam113097]

I've always wanted to run a mash-up of Dungeons and Dragons 5e and Dogs in the Vineyard in an alternate fantasy version of the American Frontier, where a party of gunslingers and mages protect settlements from monsters out of Native American legend and American Folklore.

[Jay R]

I'm sure that there is more, but this is what I came up with first:

My perfect game starts with a DM with excellent judgment, who really loves (and is knowledgeable about) the genre that it’s set in.

I don’t care what the system is. But it fits the genre, makes assumptions that appeal to me, and the DM knows it well enough that the game doesn’t bog down on rules questions.

The DM answers all my question during character creation, and wants to ensure that each PC will fit into the word, and be effective. There’s a lot of back-and-forth, and the character appeals aesthetically as much to the DM as he does to me.

The DM is perfectly comfortable with my six-page backstory, which she reads carefully. She is equally comfortable with other players’ one-sentence backstory, or no backstory at all.

The world is complete, immersive, consistent, and fits within its genre (no rifles in a medieval setting; no railroads in a musketeer game, etc.). It has a feel to it that is different from any other game I’ve ever played.

All the players have created characters who will consistently cooperate with the party. I have no problem with a PC who has a separate agenda, as long as they are also on board with the party’s agenda. Nobody ever tries to justify betraying, abandoning, or not helping the rest of the party with the excuse, “But’s it’s what my character would do.”

I know enough about the mechanics to choose correctly between weapons or items my character would know about (swords, axes, spears, bows, etc). I do not know enough to evaluate weapons that he wouldn't know about (urgoshes, spiked chains, atl-atls, etc.)

Whenever the players get bogged down in argument or time-wasting distractions, the DM brings in trolls, ghouls, a cave-in, or something else that immediately gets us back in focus.

Occasionally, we appear to be overwhelmed with superior force. It looks like a total party kill is coming, until some player picks up on an important clue, we figure out the monsters’ true weakness, and come out of the encounter barely alive, but triumphant.

When one character has the perfect ability or knowledge, or one player has the perfect insight, and completely dominates a single encounter, that player gets congratulated by all the others, with no trace of jealousy. Over the course of several sessions, this happens at least once for everybody.

The DM rewards good tactics, consistent characterization, and brilliant ideas more than lucky die rolls.

The DM never makes or (or lets) us roll for something that should be either trivial or impossible.

The DM never lets the rules get in the way of the story, or the story prevent a consistent approach. Rules exceptions should “fit”, and shouldn’t be something the average character should know about. [I have no problem with a hidden change in what hippogriffs are like, if most people have never seen a hippogriff. But if a PC grew up in a village that is often raided by goblins, that player should know what goblins are like.]

Player decisions make a real difference, and we usually (but not always) have enough information to make a clever decision. When our decision caused a mess, we should eventually see what we could have done differently to make the right decision. [If we decided to take the mountain road, and it turns out to be washed out, so we are weeks behind in arriving, we should eventually know how we could have gotten information about the road in advance.]

Every battle ends at about the time it starts to get tedious.

Every player brings snacks occasionally. When a player is out of work, nobody cares that he stopped bringing snacks.

The DM makes quick rulings when necessary, and usually they are decisions I would make. When players don’t like it, she listens to the complaints, considers them, and makes her final call using her best judgment. After that judgement is made, everybody drops the issue and we move on.

At some point the DM makes a ruling I consider completely wrong. She listens to me respectfully, sticks with it, and we move on. Eventually I discover that that anomaly was really an important clue to the mystery of the adventure.

[Phhase]

It's an echo, it's not original, it's kinda sad, but...

One where everyone cares, everyone tries, everyone comes, everyone listens, and everyone enjoys.

But that's unrealistic, isn't it :smallfrown:?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm with pphase. I just want to have everybody show up consistently, show up on time, pay attention, and at least know the rules for their own bloody characters. I wouldn't think it's that much to ask.

[username1]

A game where the players all care as much as the DM, and are engaged. Players and the DM are always having discussions in between games to help improve the experience overall. When you sit down at the table phones are set aside, and everyones focus is on the game. That would help make any game amazing in my opinion.

[Democratus]

Yeah. A game where everyone puts in an effort.

[Tohron]

A campaign set in a mostly untamed wilderness, where civilization has struggled to maintain itself against the monsters and natural hazards of the world, and technological/magical developments are only now enabling expansion into untamed areas. The players are expected to innovate ways to use the rules for machinery and magic to help spearhead that expansion, and make a place for themselves in the wider world. Not sure which systems would be best suited to that.

[Cluedrew]

I find it sad how low the bar is for "perfect" with some people. Even if people caring (or some variant there of) is the single biggest thing you want out of a game is there nothing else?

My perfect game would probably also have diverse characters, PCs getting into conflict while the players themselves laugh about it and the campaign being dynamically shaped by character choices. And probably other things I am not thinking of off the top of my head.

[Quertus]

So, kudos to @JayR (@Jay_R? What is the convention for multiple-word names? (I usually just use initials, JR)) for a very thought-out post. It put me in the frame of mind to try to answer the question.

(Also, for the lols: this is version 2. My first attempt, I realized that there was little to differentiate "my perfect game" from "real life" :smalleek:)

Baseline - the game exists

Or, perhaps I should say, the game will *continue* to exist.

So, for my *truly* perfect game, we're gaming "in heaven": we're immortal, there's nothing "real life" getting in the way of the game. We still do other things, learn outside the game, just those don't get in the way of the game.

Clear enough?

Speaking of doing other things…

Not the only game in town

I want to be in several games simultaneously. Probably 3-4ish, if they meet weekly. In addition to having other, non-gaming experiences. As a rule, these games are unconnected… but may share some players. Many of the players in these games would be in games that I'm not in.

Dedication

The players actually show up for the game. During the session, they actually play the game. (Pretty much everyone agrees on this bit, right?)

-----

Pretty boring stuff so far, right? So I'll just skip past Preparedness, Memory, Stamina, all the ways people should be onboard for the same thing, etc. Let's get to the fun stuff, shall we?

-----

All things to all people

I don't want everyone to want the exact same things out of the game. Just like JR's "spotlight sharing", I want players who can enjoy "content sharing". The GM can provide content for the war gamers, and the roleplayers, and the explorers, and the… I feel like I've almost got hearts, diamonds, spades, and clubs. You get the idea, right?

I've had a few good groups that were like this, and a few amazing GMs who could deliver.

This next one, however, really would all but require heaven:

Excels at all scene types

Some GMs are great at creating things to Explore. Some GMs are great at creating carefully balanced encounters. Some GMs are great at creating horrifically unbalanced encounters. Some GMs are great at Horror. Some GMs are great at role-playing NPCs. Some GMs are great at crafting difficult moral challenges. Some GMs are great at creating puzzles. Some GMs are great at creating "feels". Etc etc etc.

No GM I've ever encountered was great at everything.

In my perfect game experience, my character would get to experience excellent renditions of everything that I care about (or that I care about for that character)

This would require…
* Gaming culture to have evolved to the point where porting characters between tables was expected and handled well, or
* A single godlike GM.

Or something I haven't considered.

So, barring some deity / AI / whatever, my perfect game would involve an existing charterer I'd already played under numerous GMs - probably with one or more of the players, and possibly with one or more of the PCs - possibly getting to experience a new "best" kind of content, but definitely having blanks on their "best content bingo card".

Actually, I'm pretty sure that my *perfect* game would involve me running an existing character, tested and vetted to fit like a glove, so that I can focus on the game, regardless of any other considerations. (And then, sure, in one of those 3ish games, I can be trying out someone new)

Speaking of focusing on the game…

Protection from Metagaming

Here's another all-but-impossible one: we're gaming, not metagaming.

What? Well, metagaming can mean several things. I don't mean, "we have to read the GM's mind, and know what he wants us to do" - that's covered under "sturdy construction", below.

What I actually mean is, I want to be able to just run my character, without worrying about ruining anyone else's fun. Gaming was much, much more fun when I believed Role-playing was the greatest possible Good, Metagaming was Evil, and "my guy" (if I'd heard of it) would have been the path to sainthood.

To facilitate this? Honestly, I'm not sure that it's possible.

I mean, some godlike AI, that ran a perfect "session 0", to engineer characters that would work together? That's the path we originally used to take; as the GM's were "mere mortals", it wasn't always successful.

Playing with nothing but bots, Simulacra, or alternate reality versions of myself? Yeah, that would probably work - I wouldn't have to worry about hurting any of their feelings (do Simulacra *have* feelings?).

The best I've seen "mere mortals" accomplish was to have people display their "range" in a series of one-shots, then have the group work together to pick out a party (and an adventure) that they believe will maximize fun / minimize risk.

Exploration + Toolkit

One of the things most beneficial to my fun is handing me a huge, broad toolkit, and the GM saying, "have fun".

So, my classic example: rocks that float through the air.

I want the GM to already know the underlying mechanics, and for those mechanics to be… hmmm… reasonably interfacable. I want to be able to research it, and utilize it. Maybe I use it to make Shoes of Water Walking, or super skipping stones, or juggling statues, or flying castles. I don't want to find that it's already been Explored, and is the home of the Flying Rock School of Martial Arts, the one and only possible use for this anomaly ever. :smallannoyed:

And I don't want the GM to hand me just this one tool. Much like the Rule of Three, I want to be handed *lots* of tools, of various types, like… An orcish invasion. A lonely Driad. Dungeon mummies who "just came in to get out of the rain". A kidnapped princess. An evil king and his noble vizier. Cabbage migrations. The elemental plane of taffy. Phoenix extinction. A new technique for ascension. Floating rocks. A Wizard war. An underwater portal to the elemental plane of taffy, with invisible, incorporeal guardians. Troll bridges viewed favorably. Sentient bats. Dragonfire legions. The library in the mirror realm. The source of freckles. Suicidal immortals. A beaten dog. An artifact ice cream truck. Contagious visions. A lake of gilding. Mass enslavement of Kaorti for their weapons. Pumpkin-headed zombies spontaneously appearing.

My perfect game would almost certainly involve an all but unexplored world, with a rich, thought-out toolkit for the PCs to do whatever they want with - including ignoring any arbitrary subset of the tools - as they see fit.

A good game, independent of the PCs

Related the the previous, these tools should not be custom tailored to the PCs - they should produce a fun game no matter what the party composition, rather than an unfun set of contrivances.

The same is true of the game in general.

Sturdy construction

Also related to the toolkit to Explore, I want the game to be Sturdy, not fragile. There should be no single thing that the PCs can do - or not do - that will lead to a fail state (such as the GM giving up the game as hopeless). If, first session, we score a lucky crit with a poisoned arrow (or have a clever plan), and kill the BBEG, the GM should not take away our accomplishment, and there should still be a fun game left to play. Same for if we kill any other NPC, resolve any other challenge, give any item to any character, or ignore, change, or destroy any particular game element. And, if the change is major (like killing the BBEG), the game should probably look almost nothing like if we hadn't accomplished what we did (so no, "oh, a lieutenant takes over", or "hunt down the BBEG's forces, in the same order that you would have faced them otherwise, just without the climactic end fight", unless that's what the party wants to do & what makes sense).

The Rules

This one is actually tricky to answer what my *perfect* game would look like.

I mean, "the rules are printed and knowable" clearly belongs there. And you'd think "…and everyone knows the rules" would be perfect, right? Except… I enjoy that bit of mystery, that, "what do you mean, the white dragon appeared to take no damage from my Fireball?". Not because of some GM ****pull, but because of printed rules.

*And the GM has bothered to develop player trust in their adherence to the rules*. Personally, I'm a fan of my, "you'd think that, wouldn't you?" method, to show that I acknowledge that this should seem strange, to make the PCs seem like a part of the world, not pants on heads idiots, and that I'm using some obscure rule or something is otherwise up.

However…

Custom Content

I'm a fan of stuff that the GM made themselves. I mean, it's nice if it's also objectively *good* content, of high quality and all, but that's not strictly required.

So, my perfect game could, and probably should, have some of the GM's own unique creations. However, it is the players' own unique creations - the PCs (and, perhaps, their creations) - that should take center stage.

(And such homebrew should usually *not* be what's producing the "huh?" moments, above)

Epic scope

I want my characters to kill the gods, invent the TARDIS, rearrange planar geography, really change the world.

And not because that was the GM's "plot". In fact,

there is no plot

Sure, lots of NPCs are plotting lots of things. The PCs may even foil some of those plots - or even help them along!

But the PCs are the ones Exploring the World, are the ones with all the cool toys, who get to decide what their story is about.

The World feels real

No leveling treadmill, no tailored encounters, no contrivance.

What's there is there, and it's up to the party to gather information and play Combat as War to be able to deal with it. The players are empowered to select their own difficulty level. A true sandbox.

Or the players have bought into a more linear one-shot adventure ("rescue the kidnapped dragon from the evil princess"), the GM has communicated the average expected competence, and the players have chosen characters accordingly.

Either way, the NPCs act like real people, the world physics & history are coherent, etc.

(Also, while I could do "kick in the door", "beer and pretzels" gaming, I want to be *rewarded* for clever ideas, not have the GM equate "thinking" with "cheating". My perfect game would not require me to turn my brain off to have fun.)

The rules, part II

RAW (plus any house rules, created and explained before the game started) are the rules, and any player can state the rules equally. Although, in my *perfect* game, would any non-GM player ever actually need to state a rule because the GM was ignorant? Shrug.

I guess there are several valid options here:

1) The rules are knowable, and everyone knows the rules (but can still be surprised by interactions / the outcome of the game isn't known when people sit down to play);

2) The rules are knowable, and the GM knows at least all of the relevant rules - the game runs quickly and smoothly, the GM has bothered to develop the trust of the players;

3) The rules are knowable, and someone at the table knows all of the relevant rules - and the game runs quickly and smoothly, with the rules masters having bothered to develop the trust of the group;

4) The rules are knowable, but people are imperfect, and mistakes happen - they are caught at the time, with an "are you sure?", and the game is fixed to use the correct rule before we move on (the GM never arbitrarily "makes an ruling" about a published rule, and, obviously, the GM doesn't make a fragile, shark-based game that dies if it stops swimming);

5) The rules are knowable, but people are imperfect, and rules debates happen - the entire group enjoys these, participates in these, has the books to research the rules (and, obviously, the GM doesn't make a fragile, shark-based game that dies if it stops swimming);

I think that any of those would make a perfect game (although only 4&5 are "realistic", but I've had tables that came close to 3, 2 (especially if you count war games) and 1(in games like chess)).

(Although perhaps not "perfect", one group deserves honorable mention. Whenever there was a rules question, the GM gave the group "5 minutes" to make their case(s); valid arguments took the form, "look right here, the rules say…" or "but if X, then Y, and we don't want Y". If a valid argument was made, done. If not, then the GM would flip a duplex cookie (I happen to have brought some the 1st time this came up, and I just continued bringing them after this). White side up, it worked whatever way most benefited the party at the moment, and was written into the house rules. Black side up, it worked whatever way most hindered the party at the moment, and was written into the house rules. One example that came up was, iirc, "does summoning break invisibility". Everybody got involved in the rules discussion, there was no need for retcon, and the world was consistent.)

Communication

The GM understands the different layers of understanding (Knowledge, Wisdom, etc), and runs the game accordingly.

The GM catches when the players have misunderstood something because of a player / GM error, and fixes it (OK, in the (unrealistic) "perfect" game, such misunderstandings probably don't happen in the first place)

However, when the players misunderstand something that it would be reasonable for the PCs to have misunderstood, they let that misunderstanding happen.

Pursuant to maximizing player agency, if we turn the game's threads into rope with which to hang ourselves, we are allowed to do so - and everyone enjoys it! But we aren't forced to appear as "pants on head" idiots just because the GM cannot describe a scene.


Tools, not paths


A cleric receives a letter indicating one of their deity's temples has been destroyed by servants of another deity and the cleric is the closest available resource. Please go clear out the temple and make the area safe for the priests that follow to rebuild.


This is not a player led adventure. This is a DM led adventure which has a player-specific hook.

If the DM has to tell the players what to do (i.e. "go clear out the temple"), then the players aren't leading. A player led adventure looks more like this :

DM: "While in the market, you hear the news that the temple of Mitra in the next town upriver has been ransacked and burned by followers of Set (that snake cult which has been growing rapidly over the past few years). Apparently, the priest and acolytes were killed by a group of Setite riders who torched the temple before heading east into the hills."
PC Cleric of Mitra: *goes to other PCs* "I need your help! We have to go upriver and investigate what happened to the Temple of Mitra. The clergy will need a proper burial and I need to salvage whatever I can from the rubble before scavengers loot it."

Or

"We must avenge my murdered brethren! If we leave immediately and strike northwest over land, we might be able to pick up their trail and catch up to them in the foothills before they disappear into the mountains."

Or

"While you guys are resting and resupplying here, I'm going to take a boat upriver to lay the murdered priests to rest and check on the villagers. I'll be back in 3 or 4 days."

Or

"Damn! Bad place to be a Mitran! Let's get our supplies together and get out of here!"

Or

"We've got to go take care of those frost giants raiding the coast. Stopping the giants before they get down to the port city of Imelas is more important right now than fighting some snake worshiping bandits up in the hills. I can only pray that they will be brought to justice before they hurt anyone else."

Game balance

… would not exist. The party would not be balanced compared with each other, let alone with any given content. And everyone would love it that way.

Everyone would love the "how do we make this party work" / "CaW how do we overcome this obstacle" minigames. Weak party members would simply add to the fun of the obstacles; strong party members would simply add to the fun of the toolkit.

Note: everyone contributes. I don't think that my perfect game would involve someone whose value is negative.

Much like "spotlight sharing", who was playing the weak / strong / average characters would vary from game to game. (Note: I doubt I'd ever want to run Armus as "the strong one", and Quertus as "the weak one" would be… interesting. So it's not necessarily "this character may be strong or weak", only that the players will vary their role as they desire)

The only times "game balance" would ever be mentioned "in heaven" would be a) when playing a war game, b) when a player went too far in an imperfect game (in either direction), or c) when an imperfect GM declared a module suitable for X, and was wrong.

Closing remarks

My "perfect game" would probably take place in D&D 2e… or a variant reworded to use "BAB" and addition rather than THAC0. And 3e "Fighter gets +1 BAB at 1st level"-style ability advancement. And no class or level limits by race.

There would be lots of customization available to allow your character to match the vision in your head. Ie, kits, skills & powers, the custom class creation rules in the DMG, and more homebrew options would all be available.

I'm not sure about backporting things like "prestige classes" (I may create a thread about this - in fact, I did). (EDIT: current guess: characters would have "growth points" as they level, and be able to pick up additional, "Prestige Class"-style benefits appropriate to their adventures / training.)

In the *perfect* game, there would be at least (and perhaps at most?) one PC who was… odd. A Jedi, or a WoD Vampire, or a Cleric of Tzeentch, or a ½-Kryptonian, or someone with the Triggermortis Readykill. Whatever. They aren't the strongest, they aren't integral to "the plot", they don't warp the game around themselves - they're just weird. And someone important to my enjoyment of this - myself, the party tactician trying to make use of their skills, etc - is and remains completely clueless, playing it honest (maybe they're completely unfamiliar with Jedi / My Hero Academia, or maybe they don't recognize it when given a different name ("your powers are focused around life Force? Sounds like a ShadowRun mage…”, etc).

I'm sure I'll have other criteria eventually, but this seems like a good start.

[Draconi Redfir]

Small, barely-sentient (as in, 3-5 Int at most) woodland critters. each one magical and unique in it's own way, having it's own weird origin that gave it some cool template and stat modifications. the problem was figuring out the plot.

Think i've got a plot now. just need to do some homebrew. though i'll likely be the DM rather then a player.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Small, barely-sentient (as in, 3-5 Int at most) woodland critters. each one magical and unique in it's own way, having it's own weird origin that gave it some cool template and stat modifications. the problem was figuring out the plot.

Think i've got a plot now. just need to do some homebrew. though i'll likely be the DM rather then a player.

I've thought about an Animals of Farthing Wood (you now, I honestly think this is the first time I noticed the pun potential there. Hihi, smelly animals) style game before. Making them magical animals might be just the extra something a game like that needs.

(For the uninitiated: Animals of Farthing Wood is an animated series about small to medium forest critters somewhere in Britain who flee their home as it is being leveled for construction works and go on a journey to a national park only the toad has ever been to before. They have adventures involving rivers, roads, farmlands, swimming pools, hunters, wildfires, they have an in-setting rule/oath against pvp and presumably they have a killer DM that gets at least one creature killed in most sessions. It would pretty much be the ultimate in minimalist and hardcore gaming, but probably a little too minimalist to get the most fun out of it.)

[Stattick]

A series of games, with the same players, each game running for 2-3 years.

Game 1: Men of Mystery
Set between the two world wars, from about 1925-1929, a very low level supers game. Nothing is canon except what the characters bring to the game via backstories. Canon is built up over the course of the game by what the characters do, who they fight, etc. Game ends as the roaring 20's come to a halt with the start of The Great Depression.

Game 2: World at War
Starts in 1939 or '40. The characters fight a cloak and dagger war against Axis spies, and occasionally get involved in some outright fighting while globe trotting. A low level supers game. Canon from the Game 1 is carried over, so the PCs can be a part of the same organizations or whatnot, or they can bring in new elements to the setting with their backstories. Eventually, as more nations get involved in the war, it turns into a game all about punching Nazis, probably on the front lines. Virtually every power and organization in the setting ends up involved in the war somehow. The PCs very well may end up drafted into the OSS or whatnot. A lot of stories would have to do with thwarting Nazi experiments with super soldiers and mysticism.

Game 3: Cold War and The Counterculture
Runs from the mid to late 1960's. Cannon carried over, once again. Mid-level supers. There's been an explosion of supers, particularly mutants. It's thought that a lot of the weird experiments, radioactive fallout, and stuff from WWII has caused a substantial increase in mutants. Plus there's still all those secret organizations and stuff, still out there doing things, experimenting with things they shouldn't, and their tech is getting out here and there too. There's the government stiffs, trying to keep a lid on everything, the g-men in their black suits. Agitators are branding mutants as second class citizens, people are trying to pass the Mutant Registration Act, some people are calling for the annihilation or segregation of mutants, and so forth. Meanwhile, seeming away from, but sometimes intersecting with the domestic problems, are the international concerns of the Cold War. This is the time frame where you introduce things that most good supers setting has, if they're not already present - aliens, dimensional threats, super sorcerery, space gods, atlantis, alternate timelines, time travel, dinosaur land, super spy organizations, etc. At the beginning of the campaign, make the players choose whether they're going to be working for The Man (SHIELD etc), if they're going to be Mutie Sympathizers (X-Men etc), or if they're going to try to stay neutral (Avengers). Give the players the opportunity to switch sides over the course of the campaign too. Make sure to let them be present for things that were a big deal at the time (Woodstock) or get directly involved in historical events (Cuban Missile Crisis).

Game 4: Iron Age
Mid 80's to about 1990. It's all turned to ****. Cannon is carried over, of course. But things have just gotten worse, more violent, and vigilantism is rampant. Guns are everywhere, blood runs in the streets. Gang violence is at an all time high. Some people say that the counterculture has turned toxic. Heavy metal, punk, and rap, fill young minds with poison. Dangerous cult influenced games like Dungeons and Dragons get kids involved in diabolism. Violent video games and movies are a real problem too. Or maybe it's all the poisons in the air, water, and food from heavy industry. Or maybe it's aliens, demons, or mutants. But at any rate, it's so violent that when movies like Robocop come out, people think that's EXACTLY what the future is going to look like.

[Aliquid]

Yeah. A game where everyone puts in an effort.
Yup. I'm good with any game, I just want to play one where all the players and the GM are actually staying on task and putting an effort into the game as a team. Actually showing up, not fiddling on their phone, or playing to only make _their_ character the best, or ignoring the actual plot, or sabotaging the plot, or not bothering to understand the rules...

[Minty]

My perfect game is one where all the other players actually have brains and use them. Usually when I don't enjoy a game it's due to other players doing one or more of the following:


Not understanding what's appropriate for the setting
Not being able to think through the likely consequences of their actions
Never having any idea what to do, so just doing random dumb stuff (usually as a consequence of 1 and 2 above)
Not having any concept of roleplaying a coherent character

I hate being the leader in a group, I find it exhausting, but I always end up having to do it because other players either can't ever think of anything to do and look to me to solve everything, or always want to do the dumbest thing possible without any forethought and need to be kept in line to avoid a TPK every session. What I'd like would be to play in a group of high-level thinkers where another player is both willing to lead and has judgment I trust. I want a captain. I've never had that. I also wouldn't mind playing with a group that doesn't mind arithmetic, so we don't have to play simple rules-lite dice pool systems all the time. Basically, I would like nothing more than to be the dumbest person in the group.

Also, probably a game that doesn't follow the usual roleplay formula of "get mission, go sneak around and investigate, find enemy lair, go to enemy lair and roll lots of dice, collect loot, get next mission..."

[Zelphas]

I have two oddly specific things that I'd love to do, which would probably have to be in mutually exclusive games.

The first is a desire for a Heroic Sacrifice. I'd love to wrap up a character by having them hold the line against an encroaching enemy, giving the rest of the party time to escape and prepare for the real final battle. This would probably work best in a more standard-style D&D game, though with that I suppose there's always the chance of someone trying True Resurrection or something which would make the death difficult to stick. Still, narratively, it's something that I think I'd find really satisfying as the end of a character arc, and it would give my character a wonderful way to be remembered while still letting everyone else shine through the end of the campaign.

The second is a campaign centered around cooking. It's a weird concept that I've seen in a few places, but never really as an RPG. I like the idea either of a party that is motivated by the desire to find, cook, and eat new delicacies as their main reason for adventuring, or who do so as a necessity when traveling through an area where standard food is hard to come by. I like cooking but I don't usually have the disposable funds to play around with food and see what happens, so creating random fantasy dishes out of defeated foes or fantastical flora and fauna has a big appeal.

I'd echo what a lot of people are saying here about what makes a good game--reliable players, competent DMing, consistent scheduling, character conflict without player conflict, etc.--but these weird little concepts are what would push a game from good and fun to great and memorable, for me.

[Zarrgon]

Must say many are setting the bar quite low....

Mine:

1.Pregame Everyone would show up a full hour early for the game so that everyone can talk and hang out and watch you tube videos and act like social idiots...and get that all out of their system.

Everyone has their character, D&D materials including dice, and writing supplies. Everyone was wise enough to know they might get hungry or thirsty in the next couple hours so they when to the store ahead of time and bought whatever food and drinks they liked and brought them with them.

Everyone is well rested and ready to play, and even more wants to play. For the next several hours everyone will be willing to ''forget" the rest of the world even exists. Everyone will be more then willing to turn off their phones and leave them far, far, far, far away from the game.

2.Game Play Everyone will role play an interesting social based character that continuously interacts with the other players and the whole game world. Unless someone else is speaking, no one will be quiet for more then roughly a minute as everyone will want to contribute to the game play continuously.

Players will play Classic Hero types....they will throw themselves into danger for fun. There will not be any boring several hour long planning sessions as the players try to exploit the game.

Players will accept anything that happens with no comment....even if they don't like it. They will just keep playing the game.

The game will be fast paced and exciting and all players will pay attention every second of the game.

3.After Players will help clean up.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Describe for me your perfect game. I don't care how much of a Frankenstein it seems. Just describe that ONE GAME you've always wanted to play.



Basically things I like:
Thinking about things
Planning things and executing those plans
TANKS!
SPACESHIPS!
LASER GUNS!
The three things that you're not supposed to talk about at dinner: Politics, Religion, and Economics [though I maintain that those three are the key to not having a boring dinner, but...]
Guns & more advanced setting. I prefer sci fi, or if it has to be fantasy, then a western/steampunk setting.
Fast paced firefights with infantry tactics
Combined arms
"Realism"
Lots of player latitude
Player driven story
GM's who say yes

Things I don't like:
Eldritch horror
Body horror
Horror in general. "The horror of war" or "what have I done!" moments are fine, but nothing that would be billed as a horror movie.
Zombies
Too Much Fantasy
Dual Wielding Swords
People who complain too much about "X is Realistic"
Easy encounters
Encounters that are slow and tactically shallow because of a small number of enemies with a lot of HP, sudden existence failure, and a lack of meaningful maneuver and engagement options
PC's that are a magically selected cut above the rest of society with no particular given reason other than being dinged for special-ness.
Modern Fantasy. This sounds weird, but my preferred times for events are, in order, Far Future, 1840-1910, 1945-1993. Most other time periods are kind of turn-off for me in the RPG realm, though I love the World Wars era for other gaming

[Jay R]

Must say many are setting the bar quite low....

Mine:

1.Pregame Everyone would show up a full hour early for the game so that everyone can talk and hang out and watch you tube videos and act like social idiots...and get that all out of their system.

Everyone has their character, D&D materials including dice, and writing supplies. Everyone was wise enough to know they might get hungry or thirsty in the next couple hours so they when to the store ahead of time and bought whatever food and drinks they liked and brought them with them.

Everyone is well rested and ready to play, and even more wants to play. For the next several hours everyone will be willing to ''forget" the rest of the world even exists. Everyone will be more then willing to turn off their phones and leave them far, far, far, far away from the game.

2.Game Play Everyone will role play an interesting social based character that continuously interacts with the other players and the whole game world. Unless someone else is speaking, no one will be quiet for more then roughly a minute as everyone will want to contribute to the game play continuously.

Players will play Classic Hero types....they will throw themselves into danger for fun. There will not be any boring several hour long planning sessions as the players try to exploit the game.

Players will accept anything that happens with no comment....even if they don't like it. They will just keep playing the game.

The game will be fast paced and exciting and all players will pay attention every second of the game.

3.After Players will help clean up.

4. Later. I buy a winning lottery ticket on the way home.

[Dragons_Ire]

Wilderness exploration is heavily emphasized. My choices of skills and tools feel as impactful as my combat build choices. Interesting locations are the norm - a ruined tower on a hill, barely visible from the road; An old, rune covered stone hidden among the trees; A cave flanked by crumbling statues - and many are optional diversions, risky due to the resources they cost to explore. The world's lore is gradually revealed via what we find and explore. Player characters are strongly tied to the world via attachments formed during play, and backstory details come into play. An overarching plot is a bonus, but not required.


That said, I'm lucky enough to have a group of friends with several people (including myself) willing to DM. None of us are great at it yet, but that'll come in time.

[username1]

My perfect game is one where all the other players actually have brains and use them. Usually when I don't enjoy a game it's due to other players doing one or more of the following:


Not understanding what's appropriate for the setting
Not being able to think through the likely consequences of their actions
Never having any idea what to do, so just doing random dumb stuff (usually as a consequence of 1 and 2 above)
Not having any concept of roleplaying a coherent character

I hate being the leader in a group, I find it exhausting, but I always end up having to do it because other players either can't ever think of anything to do and look to me to solve everything, or always want to do the dumbest thing possible without any forethought and need to be kept in line to avoid a TPK every session. What I'd like would be to play in a group of high-level thinkers where another player is both willing to lead and has judgment I trust. I want a captain. I've never had that. I also wouldn't mind playing with a group that doesn't mind arithmetic, so we don't have to play simple rules-lite dice pool systems all the time. Basically, I would like nothing more than to be the dumbest person in the group.

Also, probably a game that doesn't follow the usual roleplay formula of "get mission, go sneak around and investigate, find enemy lair, go to enemy lair and roll lots of dice, collect loot, get next mission..."

This is exactly how I feel at many of my game sessions. I’ve never been able to put it into words, but this exactly explains what I feel. Understanding what’s appropriate for the setting and theme is so crucial to an engaging game in my opinion. My favorite group understands this, and has the most realistic and engaging plot in my opinion.(However we meet on average 6 times a year😭)

[ezekielraiden]

Long-run 4th edition D&D playing a Paladin of Bahamut and getting all the way to the end of Epic tier. Either Zeitgeist, or a homebrew setting.

See, I have this whole idea about Bahamut. He's not just a deity. He was created by having Io, a being of perfect neutrality, get all the bad, evil parts in him literally cut away. Bahamut is a becoming overdeity. He just needs time--and people not merely believing in justice, mercy, and care for others, but practicing them in their daily lives.

We can build a world where True And Perfect Justice is divine. All it takes is effort. That will never not be worth pursuing.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Long-run 4th edition D&D playing a Paladin of Bahamut and getting all the way to the end of Epic tier. Either Zeitgeist, or a homebrew setting.

See, I have this whole idea about Bahamut. He's not just a deity. He was created by having Io, a being of perfect neutrality, get all the bad, evil parts in him literally cut away. Bahamut is a becoming overdeity. He just needs time--and people not merely believing in justice, mercy, and care for others, but practicing them in their daily lives.

We can build a world where True And Perfect Justice is divine. All it takes is effort. That will never not be worth pursuing.

That's a very optimistic worldview.

[Draconi Redfir]

Players will accept anything that happens with no comment....even if they don't like it. They will just keep playing the game.

unf, that would be nice. Had too many games end or cause drama because someone opted to argue instead of rolling with the punches.

[jjordan]

Describe for me your perfect game. I don't care how much of a Frankenstein it seems. Just describe that ONE GAME you've always wanted to play.

Gamewise I'd like to play a game that isn't predicated on winning through violence. I'd like for there to be enough information that we can solve the game in lots of different ways, even winning crushing victories when we plan well enough. And, on the subject of plans, I'd like for them to be more developed than: We're going to try to do A, but when we the first bad die roll spoils the plan we're just going to kill everything.

Systemwise I'd like to use the Storytelling System stats, simplified GURPS style skill building and dice mechanics, and D&D production values.

[Spriteless]

I'd love for someone else to run, actually. Maybe that Arcana Unleashed setting for 3e, I could play someone who meditates to learn the memories of the land. Or if someone ran Ryutama I could pretend to be on vacation, might have made the quarantine easier.

I am seriously considering shoe-horning FATE and Mage together, though. If I have to run something.

[Yora]

I've been wanting for years to run a Basic/Expert D&D campaign on the original Isle of Dread and combining it with Against the Cult of the Reptile God and Dwellers of the Forbidden city to make one big jungle exploration sandbox with yuan-ti and aboleths. All of it set in a homebrew Sword &Sorcery setting that I had been tinkering with for ages.

Though I had to switch to 5th edition to get a good number of players on board, I actually got this campaign started last month, and so far it has been amazing. Pretty much everything I was ever hoping for.

There's been a huge rotation of players so far, but being a sandbox campaign I found that to be no issue at all. There's been a total of 10 players so far, and of the 6 who started in the first session only 2 are still around, and only one of them played in all six sessions. And it really is not a problem. We now have a well established core group of 4 players who are all deeply invested, and other players dropping in and out isn't causing any issues. Since this campaign is about discovering the setting and having fun encounters, and not about the stories of individual characters or acting out a fixed plot about fighting a specific villain, having characters absent for a few sessions or drop out completely does not lead to any complications.