In No RPG Better than Bad or Mediocre RPG?

[Easy e]

This board has a couple of idiosyncrasies that I have noticed in my short time here.

One is how easy many player's perceive it is to get a new group of players involved in RPGs. There seems to be this belief that you can drop a GM, players, or even whole tables and move onto the next one without much trouble. I am envious of this attitude as I have found the opposite to be true.

Therefore, I have had to compromise some of my preferences and RPG desires in order to meet the needs of the larger group. This has led to me participating in mediocre or even bad games; but only as a transitory state to the next phase of what our group was doing.

I have also gone long stretches with never playing an RPG as I had no one else interested in the topic that I could locate, or they were not picking up new players. In my experience, TT RPG players are a niche group, and often isolated to friends not interested in picking up strangers.

Therefore, is No RPG really better than bad or mediocre RPG? In my lifetime, I preferred to be part of an in-person game even if it was not great, than not be playing at all. Therefore, sometimes I have to compromise on what that game looks and feels like.

What has been your experience on the matter?



Note: I once heard a "truism" that the best place to find D&D players is to go someplace where people are forced to be, when they do not want to be there. Therefore, prisons, schools and the military have a lot of RPG groups. Oddly, I have not seen this carry-over into the standard workplace yet.

"I have booked the conference room from 1-3 for every afternoon Friday for an important meeting. Everyone, please bring your own dice, mini, and your laptop with D&D beyond loaded."

[KorvinStarmast]

Note: I once heard a "truism" that the best place to find D&D players is to go someplace where people are forced to be, when they do not want to be there. Therefore, prisons, schools and the military have a lot of RPG groups. Oddly, I have not seen this carry-over into the standard workplace yet. There was a group of folks at work who played D&D (away from work) six or seven years ago that I found about by accident during a casual discussion.
They didn't extend an invite. (The group was already kind of big). When the one guy (who it turns out was the backbone of the group) moved to take a new job elsewhere that group stopped D&Ding. One of the guys is still at work but he mostly plays once per month with his family, sometimes.

I (DM) mentor a lady at work who began DMing after 5e came out. But I don't play with her group. (which began at her church). I already had two or three on line groups I was involved with.

I would love to play in a one shot with some of the folks at work whom I know play D&D, but the scheduling and 'hey that's a good idea' thing have not meshed. (A bunch of us will probably see the D&D movie together around the time that it comes out).

"I have booked the conference room from 1-3 for every afternoon Friday for an important meeting. Everyone, please bring your own dice, mini, and your laptop with D&D beyond loaded." On Friday people want to get away from the office and be anywhere else. No surprise that what you illustrate there doesn't happen.

The work connection thing either hits or it misses.

[kyoryu]

Depends on the workplace. It's often worked well for me.

As far as "no RPG is better than a bad/mediocre one", it really depends on the specifics.

Actively toxic, with people arguing for hours and throwing dice? I'll pick "no game" every time.

But any activity with people involves compromise. You're not going to get exactly what you want - the best you can hope for is to get enough of what you want, enough of the time. And only you can decide where that line is.

But you also have to respect that in others, and can't expect them to change significantly. If a GM wants to run linear/railroad/preplanned games, and you prefer sandboxy games? They probably won't change that, so your options are really "deal with it" or "quit". Sticking around and being mad about it doesn't work for you or them, so don't.

Minor things? A lot easier to compromise, and probably worth it. A player insists on being a weird race, or the GM insists on limiting races? Easy enough to blow off, most of the time.

Also, there's a big difference between "a bad game" and "a bad game for you".

[False God]

Yes, I believe No Game is better than Bad Game. Mediocre Game? That's a little harder to gauge, but if you outright recognize that this is a "Bad Game", you should leave. Even if it means you might not get to play a TTRPG with other people for a long time. It'll give you time to develop your own campaign, a GOOD one, to learn from the Bad Game and do better yourself. It'll give you time to develop a new hobby or make new friends in other circles that you can attempt to get interested in playing a TTRPG.

My experience has generally been closer to yours than to these other folks who seem to be swimming in available games, choice in game stores and potential DMs to pick from. But I still think No Game is better than Bad Game.

[Batcathat]

As far as "no RPG is better than a bad/mediocre one", it really depends on the specifics.

Actively toxic, with people arguing for hours and throwing dice? I'll pick "no game" every time.

But any activity with people involves compromise. You're not going to get exactly what you want - the best you can hope for is to get enough of what you want, enough of the time. And only you can decide where that line is.

But you also have to respect that in others, and can't expect them to change significantly. If a GM wants to run linear/railroad/preplanned games, and you prefer sandboxy games? They probably won't change that, so your options are really "deal with it" or "quit". Sticking around and being mad about it doesn't work for you or them, so don't.

Minor things? A lot easier to compromise, and probably worth it. A player insists on being a weird race, or the GM insists on limiting races? Easy enough to blow off, most of the time.

Also, there's a big difference between "a bad game" and "a bad game for you".

It's always a good time saver when someone has already written out pretty much everything I had to say. :smallwink: So yeah, pretty much this for me too.

I do think some people around here are sometimes a little quick on the draw with "leave this game" as soon as someone has an issue with something, but the opposite can be true as well.

[OldTrees1]

1) No RPG is better than Bad RPG because you have alternative engagements.
I could start a board game night, or play a video game, or read a book, or watch a movie, or even exercise :smallyuk:.

2) Draw a line between Bad and Mediocre.
I played and GM'd in Adventure's League for a bit to find a group of compatible players to break off into a regular (non AL) group ( it is still going strong years later). I consider some of that time to be mediocre but on the whole it was good enough and it led to a great group. If one of those sessions was toxic, I would not have participated in that session. Draw a line between Bad and Mediocre. Don't accept Bad RPGs, but make informed decisions about Mediocre RPGs.

3) Good RPGs might include compromises.
There are multiple players involved, and my enjoyment depends on their enjoyment. That will sometimes necessitate compromises.

[Bunny Commando]

Therefore, is No RPG really better than bad or mediocre RPG? In my lifetime, I preferred to be part of an in-person game even if it was not great, than not be playing at all. Therefore, sometimes I have to compromise on what that game looks and feels like.

What has been your experience on the matter?

I would ask you: what do you mean by "bad or mediocre"?
One real-life example, I ran from a group that felt the need to use racial slurs at the gaming table (even though I politely asked more than once to stop doing it). To me, that was quite the awful game and I certainly preferred to not play it.

So yes, I do believe that not playing RPGs sometimes is definitely better than playing them. Of course, since the perfect game does not exist you have to compromise - back to my first question, what do you mean by "bad or mediocre".

[Lord Torath]

A couple questions I ask myself:

Can I have fun playing imperfect D&D?
I have a certain way I like to play. That is not the same way everyone else wants to play. The only group that has all the house rules I like is the one where I'm the sole DM, not one where I'm a player. So given that, there will always be something I don't like about a game or group. Is it merely an annoyance, or does it really upset me? Can I still have fun, despite the ruling/setting inconsistency/house rule that bothers me? If "yes", then I'll keep on playing. If I'm not having fun, though, then I will bow out.

At the end of the session, am I glad I came?
Am I filled with intriguing thoughts and ideas about the last session? Am I looking forward excitedly to the next session? Are my thoughts overwhelmingly concerned with some negative interaction or argument that took place? Am I dreading the next session? Do I wish I'd spent the time doing something else? There was one session where I decided I would rather do yard work than keep playing. So I apologized for having to leave, and went and worked in the yard instead, and had more fun than I was having in that session.

D&D is a game, and it's supposed to be fun. If you're not having fun, something is wrong, and you can either try to fix it, keep suffering, or quit. The middle option there is the only wrong one.

[Easy e]

To be clear, I do not mean Bad = Toxic.

By bad it is more like stylistic or maturity differences that vary greatly from your own, but are within the bounds of tolerable. I am thinking games where you did not have fun overall, but you grind through to the other side of it anyway, for a chance to do something different.

I guess when I think of my game group, they are not just fellow players, I only want to game with friends. Often the RPG session is a way to facilitate and express that friendship. That might be why I find some of this flitting about between groups so jarring.

[Rynjin]

Why would I spend 4 hours of my day, once a week, on something I'm not having fun with? If you're just "gritting your teeth to get through it" you could find something better to do with your life, surely? Life's too short to spend what little leisure time you have on something that you do not enjoy and does not do anything for you.

[Telok]

To be clear, I do not mean Bad = Toxic.

By bad it is more like stylistic or maturity differences that vary greatly from your own, but are within the bounds of tolerable. I am thinking games where you did not have fun overall, but you grind through to the other side of it anyway, for a chance to do something different.

I guess when I think of my game group, they are not just fellow players, I only want to game with friends. Often the RPG session is a way to facilitate and express that friendship. That might be why I find some of this flitting about between groups so jarring.

Yeah, if you're not in a "i can haz pickup group next week" place you'll likely end up with a small pool of people in the area to game with, and thus typically on friendly terms if not actual friends. Personally, not only is that my situation, but I find D&D 5e to be tediously dull and full of jank patches on sloppy structures and only play for the people. We all dump on the jank and joke about the group 70%+ fail rate on "know stuff" and "talk to npcs" checks, but we aren't going to write of 20 pages of house rules to fix it all.

The game is lousy, the friends are great. I can wait my turn to run something where the barbarian doesn't need to get wings and fly because they can't autopass average climb & swim checks at level 15.

[Pauly]

I have work commitments
I have family commitments
I work different shifts to my wife so we have limited time together.
I have other social demands.

My free time is precious, I just can’t afford to spend any of it on ‘bad’ or ‘meh’ gaming.

For me my enjoyment of the game is twofold. Firstly and most importantly is the social side. “Am I having fun in the company of people I like to be around?”
Next is the game side “Is the setting fun for me; and does the game system not annoy/frustrate me?”. The game design decisions of D&D frustrate me so I avoid playing it. I like settings where the characters are better and more skilled than regular people, but not demi-godlike or godlike in their power.
I also don’t have time to do a ton of reading on the background so non-mainstream niche settings are a hard sell for me. The pitch has to be something I can grok in one phrase, James Bond in space, 3 Musketeers, Gothic Horror, street level superheroes, Oceans 11 in a grimdark world, Blakes 7/Firefly; [X] or [X] with [a twist].

[OldTrees1]

To be clear, I do not mean Bad = Toxic.

By bad it is more like stylistic or maturity differences that vary greatly from your own, but are within the bounds of tolerable. I am thinking games where you did not have fun overall, but you grind through to the other side of it anyway, for a chance to do something different.

I guess when I think of my game group, they are not just fellow players, I only want to game with friends. Often the RPG session is a way to facilitate and express that friendship. That might be why I find some of this flitting about between groups so jarring.

Oh, I assumed a much worse case due to the invocation of "No gaming is better than bad gaming".

In your case you have a group of friends that can improve their group enjoyment by communicating and finding activities that they all enjoy. Then you can fluctuate between sessions you enjoy more/less rather than sessions you do/don't enjoy.

[kyoryu]

I would ask you: what do you mean by "bad or mediocre"?
One real-life example, I ran from a group that felt the need to use racial slurs at the gaming table (even though I politely asked more than once to stop doing it). To me, that was quite the awful game and I certainly preferred to not play it.

So yes, I do believe that not playing RPGs sometimes is definitely better than playing them. Of course, since the perfect game does not exist you have to compromise - back to my first question, what do you mean by "bad or mediocre".

It's up to you to define that.

Personally, I'd step away from that table.

Bad or mediocre is just really as simple as "how much do you get out of it? How much stress does it cause?" I could get fancy and say that mediocre is a lack of getting good out of something, while bad is probably something that actively causes you stress, but I don't know how necessary that is.


To be clear, I do not mean Bad = Toxic.

By bad it is more like stylistic or maturity differences that vary greatly from your own, but are within the bounds of tolerable. I am thinking games where you did not have fun overall, but you grind through to the other side of it anyway, for a chance to do something different.

I guess when I think of my game group, they are not just fellow players, I only want to game with friends. Often the RPG session is a way to facilitate and express that friendship. That might be why I find some of this flitting about between groups so jarring.

Yeah, that's fair, bad and toxic are two different things.

Also people need to consider the activity as a whole, not just the game part. Maybe the game ain't your thing, but the time with friends makes it worthwhile.

[NichG]

If the tabletop experience isn't any better than single player computer games available to me and I don't have any particular desire to hang out with those people, I'd rather play the single player game or do other things with the time. Even if I do want to hang out with those people, I have to consider if just getting food and talking and watching something or playing a multiplayer computer game would be better.

Tabletop games still have a much higher ceiling of potential for novel, transformative, and exploratory experiences than those other options, but if a game isn't actually going there then I'm not that interested. I wouldn't play a game that is just a sequence of combat encounters, even if it were run very competently with reasonable players, because to me that's not really any different than say playing Divinity Original Sin in multiplayer or something like that. It's not actually touching potential I can't get at elsewhere.

So put me down for 'mediocre games aren't worth it'.

As far as bad games, well, depends on whether it's systematically bad or bad because the GM or system took a risk. I'm all for taking risks in trying to find even more sublime play experiences. That would be worth it even if sometimes the results were bad. Systematically bad gaming though, no.

[MoiMagnus]

A good boardgame, possibly one with a campaign (Arkham Horror LCG, Gloomhaven, etc), is better than bad or mediocre RPGs. Or if you're more interested in the other part of RPGs, good improv/theater session is better than bad/mediocre RPG.

However, as long as you enjoy the company of the other players/GM, I'd probably rate bad/mediocre RPG above over "doing nothing". Though avoid committing to a multiple years long campaign you don't fully enjoy. It's important to still have the option to leave the table without any bad feelings between you and your friends. Similarly, it's important to read the room and understand when you start to be a bit of a downer for the mood due to not having the same tastes.

[kyoryu]

A good boardgame, possibly one with a campaign (Arkham Horror LCG, Gloomhaven, etc), is better than bad or mediocre RPGs. Or if you're more interested in the other part of RPGs, good improv/theater session is better than bad/mediocre RPG.

However, as long as you enjoy the company of the other players/GM, I'd probably rate bad/mediocre RPG above over "doing nothing". Though avoid committing to a multiple years long campaign you don't fully enjoy. It's important to still have the option to leave the table without any bad feelings between you and your friends. Similarly, it's important to read the room and understand when you start to be a bit of a downer for the mood due to not having the same tastes.

Good <activity> is better than bad <activity>. That's just generally true.

[MoiMagnus]

Good <activity> is better than bad <activity>. That's just generally true.

It's right that my post was kind of obvious, but the implicit part is that I consider those two activities near enough to "replace" RPGs without feeling any "withdrawal symptoms" from completely stopping to play RPGs. On the other hand, the suggestion by others of "single player videogame" by others doesn't really fill the same space in my mind for me.

[kyoryu]

It's right that my post was kind of obvious, but the implicit part is that I consider those two activities near enough to "replace" RPGs without feeling any "withdrawal symptoms" from completely stopping to play RPGs. On the other hand, the suggestion by others of "single player videogame" by others doesn't really fill the same space in my mind for me.

I wasn't trying to be snarky at you, actually. Just that we as gamers sometimes get so myopic around our preferred distraction that we'll put up with it in a bad way rather than doing something fun.

[Cluedrew]

That is where I would kind of draw the line between bad and mediocre. I guess I am throwing all the extra work around the session into the overall rating of the experience. There is nothing deep and philosophical about that, it is just kind of a convenient way to describe the difference between "not worth it" and "good enough".

I also wanted to make a crack about "Mediocre RPG" and D&D but this isn't even about system design.

[Duff]

1) exercise :smallyuk:
That's a bit drastic isn't it?

But seriously, you have to make the right decision for you.
And whether the game is good, bad or mediocre doesn't change the questions.

Does the game make you happier than you would be without it?
Would you have more fun doing your own thing? Do you have something else you could do that would be more fun? If the answer is "I'd rather be/do somewhere else" then that game is probably a no.
Even if "This game is amazing, but I'd rather be playing sportsball" then the game is not making you happier so probably give it a miss.

Unless:
The exception to the above is when the game does more for you than just be fun.
Does it meet a need better than other options?

"If I don't stay in the game, I don't get to see my friends and that's bad for my mental health"
"Playing this game lets me meet my social obligation to my family in the least annoying way"
"I don't cook, but the player who hosts always cooks dinner, so at least I get one decent meal a week"
"My fellow players are a complete train wreck, and watching them game is the only way I'll have the inspiration to finish my novel"
"The GM is hot and if I drop out, I won't ever get to ask them out"
"This game is the only commitment I can make that gives me a decent walk. Everything else is too far to walk, or close enough to be no exercise"

[animorte]

Just that we as gamers sometimes get so myopic around our preferred distraction that we'll put up with it in a bad way rather than doing something fun.
Can confirm. "But I want to have fun playing this!" So I suffer for a little bit to get the satisfaction of overcoming the obstacle (or getting lucky in competitive) so that it felt worth the time. That's generally video games though. Still relevant though.

As someone else said, I just don't have the time to waste on not enjoying myself anymore. I still believe everything is worth a trial period.

[Quertus]

When I first heard the phrase, I misunderstood it. Instead of translating "No game is better than bad game" to mean "It it better not to game than to play in a bad game", I thought it meant, "There is no such thing as a game that is better than a bad game"; ie, all games are flawed.

And... that's kinda true, in a "glass is half empty" kind of way: all humans are idiots, everyone has their flaws, every game is going to be a compilation of a bunch of horribly suboptimal factors. Obviously, there's the "glass is half full" counter-argument, that you should look on the bright side, and get the good you can out of each game.

However... while these are both true, and both valuable, I think that there are more optimal perspectives to take. For example, everyone has to start somewhere... but what is their potential? What kind of game is the combined mindsets of this group of players capable of producing?

In some cases, it's horrible and toxic, and it's never going to get any better, and you're better off removing the game from your life. In other cases, there's just inexperience and lessons to learn, and a bad game is just a diamond in the rough.

I think that having the skills to make that determination, to evaluate the... well, the cost/benefit analysis, coupled with the investment potential of a group, is important when determining whether the group is worth your time, or whether you should cut your losses and bail.

[Jay R]

The best advice I have is to join the SCA. Most gamers I’ve played with in the last 40 years, I met through the SCA. And since I got really active, I have never failed to put a group together when I wanted to. Once I announced I was starting a game, and I suddenly had 12 players.

Last year, I decided to start a game. Out of the many local gamers I know in the SCA, I chose a group of five people (plus me) that I knew would be compatible. We even get excellent cooked food for the games from the husband of one of the gamers.

I could double or triple the size of the group if I wanted to.

It turns out many of the people who play persona, take part in several arts, and simulate combat, tend to be the same sort of people who role-play, paint miniatures, and simulate combat.

[Pauly]

I think the only time I would justify a bad game as better than no game is if I were a content creator. I.E. publishing gaming material for profit.
The experience gained from knowing what went wrong can help you get things right next time.

[kyoryu]

When I first heard the phrase, I misunderstood it. Instead of translating "No game is better than bad game" to mean "It it better not to game than to play in a bad game", I thought it meant, "There is no such thing as a game that is better than a bad game"; ie, all games are flawed.

Games are played with humans. And more than "flawed", humans are different. They want different things, have different goals, different assumptions, and so on. No game you play with others will ever be 100% what you want, because the other people at the table don't want the same thing as you.

Can you get enough, enough of the time?


And... that's kinda true, in a "glass is half empty" kind of way: all humans are idiots, everyone has their flaws, every game is going to be a compilation of a bunch of horribly suboptimal factors. Obviously, there's the "glass is half full" counter-argument, that you should look on the bright side, and get the good you can out of each game.

I think it's really simple. How much are you getting out of it? How much are you putting into it? What else could you be doing, and what might you get out of that? As I've noted above, this isn't just the game, it includes the social factors, etc.


However... while these are both true, and both valuable, I think that there are more optimal perspectives to take. For example, everyone has to start somewhere... but what is their potential? What kind of game is the combined mindsets of this group of players capable of producing?

In some cases, it's horrible and toxic, and it's never going to get any better, and you're better off removing the game from your life. In other cases, there's just inexperience and lessons to learn, and a bad game is just a diamond in the rough.

Also reasonable, but even then, you're relying on others to change, so that's sketchy. I'd be hesitant to stay with an actively bad game outside of additional social resources just becuase they might get better. Now, if they seemed like really awesome people whose company I enjoyed, even if the game part itself was worse than mediocre? Then maybe, but that's the social aspects outweighing the game aspects again ("these seem like people I want to be friends with, and I'm having fun on that level, even though the game is godawful").


I think that having the skills to make that determination, to evaluate the... well, the cost/benefit analysis, coupled with the investment potential of a group, is important when determining whether the group is worth your time, or whether you should cut your losses and bail.

Indeed. Cost/benefit sounds cold, but it's the right attitude (especially when you consider opportunity cost). And usually you want to have it be a more holistic view than often seems to be suggested on the forums.... a game where the game itself isn't worth the time might be worth it for various social reasons.

[ComicSansSeraph]

This board has a couple of idiosyncrasies that I have noticed in my short time here.

One is how easy many player's perceive it is to get a new group of players involved in RPGs. There seems to be this belief that you can drop a GM, players, or even whole tables and move onto the next one without much trouble. I am envious of this attitude as I have found the opposite to be true.

It's the opposite. People know how hard finding a group can be (and it used to be much harder).

The phrase exists because of the following being posted repeatedly:

"I'm in a game that I don't enjoy. The DM is railroading the party and makes me uncomfortable to the point where I dread the game. (Long rant). How do I fix this."

"Honestly, I don't think you can. Best solution if you're not enjoying yourself is just to leave."

"I can't leave it's the only group I know."

[Psyren]

This board has a couple of idiosyncrasies that I have noticed in my short time here.

One is how easy many player's perceive it is to get a new group of players involved in RPGs. There seems to be this belief that you can drop a GM, players, or even whole tables and move onto the next one without much trouble. I am envious of this attitude as I have found the opposite to be true.

Therefore, I have had to compromise some of my preferences and RPG desires in order to meet the needs of the larger group. This has led to me participating in mediocre or even bad games; but only as a transitory state to the next phase of what our group was doing.

I have also gone long stretches with never playing an RPG as I had no one else interested in the topic that I could locate, or they were not picking up new players. In my experience, TT RPG players are a niche group, and often isolated to friends not interested in picking up strangers.

Therefore, is No RPG really better than bad or mediocre RPG? In my lifetime, I preferred to be part of an in-person game even if it was not great, than not be playing at all. Therefore, sometimes I have to compromise on what that game looks and feels like.

What has been your experience on the matter?

Are you still having fun overall, even if the experience itself makes you grit your teeth in places?

If the experience is a net benefit, keep doing it, and we can talk about ways you can work with your DM to eke additional fun out of the good parts or further mitigate the bad parts. But if you're not having fun, do something else. Life is short and free time is precious.



"I have booked the conference room from 1-3 for every afternoon Friday for an important meeting. Everyone, please bring your own dice, mini, and your laptop with D&D beyond loaded."

If you do something like this on a Friday, aim to end at a time when people can just leave the office afterward. 3pm might be too early for some businesses, though of course I don't know if that's the case for yours.

[Tanarii]

It's the opposite. People know how hard finding a group can be (and it used to be much harder).
Find a group can be hard for players, even in area with strong gaming community / many FLGS. GMs aren't common and slots in games fill up super fast. And not everyone is willing to sit down with total strangers and have what is ultimately a social interaction.

Finding a new group of players is usually a cake-walk for a GM, in any city. In smaller communities I could see it being difficult though, it might require inviting folks you know who aren't gamers to play. (Which IMO can be some of the funnest games to run, but aren't likely to become a very extended series of games past a few sessions.)

This makes "No gaming is better than bad gaming (for players)" and "(GMs should )ditch bad players / entire groups as needed and find new one(s)" both true at the same time.

[Jay R]

"Bad gaming vs. no gaming" is a false dichotomy. You should compare a bad game to whatever else you would do with that time.

So is bad gaming better than reading more books, or watching more movies or TV, or designing adventures to run next year, or surfing the internet more, or hiking, or biking, or whatever else you might do with that time?

[kyoryu]

"Bad gaming vs. no gaming" is a false dichotomy. You should compare a bad game to whatever else you would do with that time.

So is bad gaming better than reading more books, or watching more movies or TV, or designing adventures to run next year, or surfing the internet more, or hiking, or biking, or whatever else you might do with that time?

Opportunity cost is the only real cost.

[Pex]

I have played in games I'm not liking, but it comes down to if I'm having more fun playing than whatever it is that's bothering me. As long as it's yes I'll keep playing. Most of the time I end up quitting anyway, but if the group doesn't dissolve itself once in a while I find myself sticking around long enough to enjoy the game overall and the game does get better as either a problem player leaves or the DM gets better in running the game.

I had two incident recently happen at roughly the same time. I joined two new games. The first was a novice DM who didn't know the rules. Not a problem, you have to learn sometime. Unfortunately another player didn't know the rules either and was convinced I was cheating because I did things he thought was too powerful, liking casting a spell while prone or cast a spell as an opportunity attack because I had War Caster feat. He convinced the DM to rule I could never again do all the stuff he didn't like, so I quit.

In another game the DM was old school 2E era tyrannical DM type. From how he ran the game and discussing his philosophy, yeah, I knew it wasn't going to work out. He had a DM vs Player mentality. At 1st level you can go into a store and buy a life-stealer weapon for 2 gp, but if you don't say the right words he likes you get nothing. He puts us in a fighting arena to have a series of combats and we're not allowed to even short rest between fights. Some fights are super easy where us a party of 5 1st levels attacks one lone berzerker. He later becomes generous allowing us to level to 2, without a rest though just get new stuff, He has us fight three Skeleton Knights, three CR 7 creatures. He realizes he overstepped the bounds and eventually knocks it down to one skeleton knight. I was miserable in the game, but there was also a sense of wonder how this would end. I somehow found humor and fun enough to stick around. We played weekly, but then three weeks in a row there was no game and no communication, nothing. I figured the game just died and was grateful to have the excuse of leaving the Discord server.

[KorvinStarmast]

As with many things in life, so too with TTRPGs: it's who you are doing it with, not what you are doing, that matters the most. :smallcool:

[King of Nowhere]

It all comes down to wjìhat does "bad" mean.
if you mean "i don't like the system and the campaign, but i'm hanging out with friends", then yes, it's better than no game; i wouldn't call it bad.
i would call bad "someone is making racist slurs, someone else is using the table to roleplay his sexual fetishes, someone else is in a shouting match over something minor, and the last player is doing all he can to sabotage the party".

i once left a campaign for being bad, and there was an impossibly railroading dm who negated/made inconsequential everythng the party did, while the whole plot was carried by insanely powerful npcs. that's the bare minimum i'd consider for bad gaming

[gbaji]

The best advice I have is to join the SCA. Most gamers I’ve played with in the last 40 years, I met through the SCA. And since I got really active, I have never failed to put a group together when I wanted to. Once I announced I was starting a game, and I suddenly had 12 players.

That has been my experience as well. Or even just knowing people who are in such organizations, and will "bring folks along" works as well. I've had invites to join far more gaming groups than I have days in the week to ever possibly play.

I'm a bit of an odd duck when it comes to games though. I like playing. I used to do a lot of tourney play back in the day (when I was younger and had more spare time). So I guess I don't have problems with sitting down at a table with a bunch of strangers and just playing. And yeah, you see all the "types" of players along the way. I guess I have a pretty high tolerance for "bad play", as well. To me, there's something fun and interesting about meeting a new set of people around a table and seeing a completey new/different dynamic occur. Brings me back, I suppose.

I suppose that's also dependent on how invested I am in the game itself. If I am just playing in a random game, with random people, I don't really care as much if bad play occurs, or someone does something dumb and gets my character killed or something. Just don't have the investment in it. But yeah, that's ok for short term stuff. I would make some effort to either change things, or just leave, if I'm not having fun (again though, "fun" for me is sometimes just being there). I do prefer some sort of continuity in games I play, but that's with longer term play groups. I have no problems at all playing short term games with people, even if they would not meet my standards for longer term play.

So say we are playing one game system today, through one adventure with a set of characters designed for that adventure. Great. If we're going to play a different game system, with a different adventure, with different characters once this is done (not uncommmon), then I'm invested in seeing how the adventure plays out, and I'd like to gain stuff along the way, but I'm not too invested in the character itself other than as a vehicle for enjoying that one game/adventure. No more than a Talisman Character really. Like to do as well as possible, but once the box is put away, it's on to the next thing.

Uh... Actual toxic environments is a whole different ballgame though. Just "bad play"? I can work around that.

[Easy e]

I have a pretty high tolerance for "bad play" because at least the person is trying to do something cool or creative and get "out of the box" for a bit. When people only do the optimal thing, it gets kind of boring and samey.

Of course, I have GMed for a lot of people who do not play RPGs on the regular. Perhaps my favorite was during a Mecha game, one of the players with an entertainer based PC; decided to use interpretive dance while in their mecha suit to confuse the enemy and break a target lock. I loved it, had them act it out a bit, and then we rolled and it worked. So funny to me.

[King of Nowhere]

I have a pretty high tolerance for "bad play" because at least the person is trying to do something cool or creative and get "out of the box" for a bit.

that's not bad play at all. unless it becomes disruptive. if it leads to whacky hijinx, then it's good. you certainly seem to have a very mild concept of what bad gaming might entail.

[Easy e]

that's not bad play at all. unless it becomes disruptive. if it leads to whacky hijinx, then it's good. you certainly seem to have a very mild concept of what bad gaming might entail.

I was using it in the context of the poster above me. In that sense, they were referring to non-optimized play.


In the context of the thread, I term "Bad Play" as play that I may not be enjoying, Mediocre play is "play that has flashes of fun, but still not my preference" but is also not toxic play. Toxic play is toxic play and no one should continue with "toxic" play.

It sounds like the Board consensus is "bad play" = Toxic play. I did not have that same definition before starting the thread, so in that sense this was helpful.

[JNAProductions]

Bad play isn't synonymous with toxic play.
It could just be a game you're not having any fun with. The people are polite and respectful, but the game just plain isn't fun. There'd be some overlap with mediocre, there, but mediocre means (to me, at least) that it could be better, but is still at least somewhat enjoyable.

[gbaji]

I was using it in the context of the poster above me. In that sense, they were referring to non-optimized play.

And I was just following with what seemed to be the general consensus within the thread regarding toxic/bad/mediocre play.


It sounds like the Board consensus is "bad play" = Toxic play. I did not have that same definition before starting the thread, so in that sense this was helpful.

Seemed like most of the posters were talking about disruptive play, people not paying attention, GMs running railroads, etc. The few times actual toxic play was mentioned, that seemed to be a "yeah, that's always something to avoid" consensus. So maybe while all toxic play is bad play, not all bad play is toxic?

[Ionathus]

Online communities definitely have a high standard for ttrpg tables - at least in theory, when we talk about behavior on forum threads.

I can't count the number of times I've seen someone post a very innocent complaint/question about their table and get bombarded with "quit now, no D&D is better than bad D&D." Of course, there are also unfortunately plenty of players who post stories like "my DM has been levelling personal attacks against my character, me as a person, my kid sister, my dog, and my favorite Street Sharks character, and yesterday he stabbed me in the thigh with a zweihänder. Should I ask him to stop, or is this just normal D&D stuff and I'm being a crybaby?" So I don't really blame people for being on high-alert for red flags, especially because of how different someone else's experience can be without realizing it. It's hard to get context and read a situation via text.

I agree with others on this thread: toxic, mean-spirited, or capricious D&D is one of the absolute worst ways you can spend your free time. But a slow game, a boring game, or even a frustrating game can still be worth the experience. And sometimes that's the only opportunity people have to scratch that itch: not everybody is blessed with an abundance of friends who want to play. It's good to aspire for greater, but sometimes with tabletop rpgs, I think perfect can be the enemy of good.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's good to aspire for greater, but sometimes with tabletop rpgs, I think perfect can be the enemy of good. For sure. As with many things in life, so too with TTRPGs: it's who you are doing it with, not what you are doing, that matters the most.

[Rynjin]

By that same token, if I like who I'm playing with, but not what we're playing, I'll ask to do something else with everyone instead.

[KorvinStarmast]

By that same token, if I like who I'm playing with, but not what we're playing, I'll ask to do something else with everyone instead. Heck yes. Board game, bowling, golf, sailing, hiking, frisbee: let's do something fun together. :smallcool:

[Easy e]

By that same token, if I like who I'm playing with, but not what we're playing, I'll ask to do something else with everyone instead.

Not to be that guy, but....

If everyone else is fine; are you putting your needs above the groups by insisting on doing something else because you are the one not having fun?

This is not intended to be a jab, it is intending to seek to understand; as we all have different thinking styles and biases we bring to our posts. That is what makes this board solid.


<insert long boring story warning here>

I recall once I was complaining about a work meeting being non-value added and how we should ditch it, and my mentor said to me, "What are you doing to make it value-added?" I realized the answer was nothing, and that the problem was not the meeting, the problem was me. After that, I decided to start utlilizing the meeting better so it was value-added.

Does this advice sometimes apply to Mediocre/Bad RPG experiences as well? I am not sure? I do not have all the answers about things.

[Rynjin]

Too many people put others' needs above their own when it's not really necessary. If you're not having fun, make it known. if everyone else is, and doesn't want to change, then bow out. it's not super complicated from my perspective. Why fester and stew in your own boredom when you could make an attempt to fix the problem?

[Easy e]

Too many people put others' needs above their own when it's not really necessary. If you're not having fun, make it known. if everyone else is, and doesn't want to change, then bow out. it's not super complicated from my perspective. Why fester and stew in your own boredom when you could make an attempt to fix the problem?

Thank you for answering. I appreciate your candid response.

[kyoryu]

Too many people put others' needs above their own when it's not really necessary. If you're not having fun, make it known. if everyone else is, and doesn't want to change, then bow out. it's not super complicated from my perspective. Why fester and stew in your own boredom when you could make an attempt to fix the problem?

It really is this simple. "The group is doing X therefore I must" is one of the Geek Social Fallacies for a reason.

It's a little nuanced, of course, as that judgement is based on a lot of factors - if "mediocre game + fun group with friends" > "other", then play the game, but accept that and don't whine. And asking people to slightly modify is always reasonable, but they can also say no.

I don't see it as hard, just nuanced.

[King of Nowhere]

I was using it in the context of the poster above me. In that sense, they were referring to non-optimized play.


In the context of the thread, I term "Bad Play" as play that I may not be enjoying, Mediocre play is "play that has flashes of fun, but still not my preference" but is also not toxic play. Toxic play is toxic play and no one should continue with "toxic" play.

It sounds like the Board consensus is "bad play" = Toxic play. I did not have that same definition before starting the thread, so in that sense this was helpful.

i wouldn't say that bad always equals toxic. i myself used a super railroading dm as example.
then again, that level of railroading (seriously, if we defeated the monster before the end of the evening, he'd send more, and if we were losing he started depowering the attacks, so that all fights ended conveniently at the right time no matter what we did) is toxic by definition.

the thing is, while i would not say that only toxic is bad, i can't imagine a non-toxic game that's really bad. mediocre, yes, but if there is no toxicity i'm likely to enjoy it at least on some level.

Not to be that guy, but....

If everyone else is fine; are you putting your needs above the groups by insisting on doing something else because you are the one not having fun?

you can propose that they do something else, that's fine. insisting, that would be bad. leaving the group or staying for the company, that depends on too many variables

[NichG]

i wouldn't say that bad always equals toxic. i myself used a super railroading dm as example.
then again, that level of railroading (seriously, if we defeated the monster before the end of the evening, he'd send more, and if we were losing he started depowering the attacks, so that all fights ended conveniently at the right time no matter what we did) is toxic by definition.

the thing is, while i would not say that only toxic is bad, i can't imagine a non-toxic game that's really bad. mediocre, yes, but if there is no toxicity i'm likely to enjoy it at least on some level.

I'd call boring, incoherent, repetitive, unmotivated, overly by-the-book, only-battles-matter, etc or other sorts of play patterns 'bad' based on my tastes, but I wouldn't call any of those 'toxic'.

Toxic to me implies a particular way of being bad that ends up spilling into OOC relationships. If someone doesn't have a better idea for how to imagine a 'dungeon' other than as a sequence of combat encounters against generic melee enemies of the level (goblins -> orcs -> ogres -> giants/minotaurs/what have you), I absolutely would have no interest in playing that - like, I would rather stare at my phone for 4 hours than play that. I'd call it bad. But I wouldn't break off a friendship with the person.

[King of Nowhere]

I'd call boring, incoherent, repetitive, unmotivated, overly by-the-book, only-battles-matter, etc or other sorts of play patterns 'bad' based on my tastes, but I wouldn't call any of those 'toxic'.

Toxic to me implies a particular way of being bad that ends up spilling into OOC relationships. If someone doesn't have a better idea for how to imagine a 'dungeon' other than as a sequence of combat encounters against generic melee enemies of the level (goblins -> orcs -> ogres -> giants/minotaurs/what have you), I absolutely would have no interest in playing that - like, I would rather stare at my phone for 4 hours than play that. I'd call it bad. But I wouldn't break off a friendship with the person.

ah, but in my experience nobody likes those things anyway. and so nobody would play like that unless there's also a level of toxicity involved. like, most of the stuff you mentioned basically boil down to bad dming. i can imagine in such case talking and giving pointers to my buddy dm to help him improve. or taking up dming myself.
basically, i can imagne that if there is no toxicity involved, those problems can be tackled and the game can improve at least to mediocre.

[Tanarii]

ah, but in my experience nobody likes those things anyway. and so nobody would play like that unless there's also a level of toxicity involved.
I've seen any number of people play in games I would call "boring, incoherent, repetitive, unmotivated, overly by-the-book, only-battles-matter". There's even a wildly popular stream that loads of people enjoy watching other people play D&D in that is perfectly described, in my opinion, by several of these words, and I wouldn't hesitate to call "bad".

Which is incidentally why I don't like the label "Bad DM". Clearly I can't apply it to them, because half the world seems to think they're great DMs. So someone's definition would be out of whack.

[King of Nowhere]

I've seen any number of people play in games I would call "boring, incoherent, repetitive, unmotivated, overly by-the-book, only-battles-matter". There's even a wildly popular stream that loads of people enjoy watching other people play D&D in that is perfectly described, in my opinion, by several of these words, and I wouldn't hesitate to call "bad".

Which is incidentally why I don't like the label "Bad DM". Clearly I can't apply it to them, because half the world seems to think they're great DMs. So someone's definition would be out of whack.

eh, good point.
on the other hand, if i was in such a game and others would be enjoying themselves, i would not call it a bad game but i would pin it to artistic differences/incompatible styles. although we are discussing the fine points of semantics.
but since we are stuck discussing the fine points of semantics - and since i am currently stuck in bed with an injured shoulder and ankle preventing me from doing more productive activities - i may as well try to finalize how i intend those words

- bad: it implies that something is being done wrong
- toxic: there is unnecessary hostility between members of the group

so, if nothing is being done wrong and the other people are having fun, i would say we have different tastes but the game is not bad nor toxic. if the game is bad we can sit down and talk through our problems and improve, unlesssomeone is being uncooperative - in which case it's a toxic game.
i can see myself being in a group of total strangers and leaving the game instead of putting in the effort to fix it, though

[NichG]

eh, good point.
on the other hand, if i was in such a game and others would be enjoying themselves, i would not call it a bad game but i would pin it to artistic differences/incompatible styles. although we are discussing the fine points of semantics.
but since we are stuck discussing the fine points of semantics - and since i am currently stuck in bed with an injured shoulder and ankle preventing me from doing more productive activities - i may as well try to finalize how i intend those words

- bad: it implies that something is being done wrong
- toxic: there is unnecessary hostility between members of the group

so, if nothing is being done wrong and the other people are having fun, i would say we have different tastes but the game is not bad nor toxic. if the game is bad we can sit down and talk through our problems and improve, unlesssomeone is being uncooperative - in which case it's a toxic game.
i can see myself being in a group of total strangers and leaving the game instead of putting in the effort to fix it, though

It can be bad gaming for one person and not another, that's kind of the point. There's no obligation to either play or force other people to change how they play. Just don't play in that game if you aren't having fun.

[Pex]

I've seen any number of people play in games I would call "boring, incoherent, repetitive, unmotivated, overly by-the-book, only-battles-matter". There's even a wildly popular stream that loads of people enjoy watching other people play D&D in that is perfectly described, in my opinion, by several of these words, and I wouldn't hesitate to call "bad".

Which is incidentally why I don't like the label "Bad DM". Clearly I can't apply it to them, because half the world seems to think they're great DMs. So someone's definition would be out of whack.

Doesn't matter if the other players are enjoying the game. If my fun factor is less than my annoyance factor then I leave. I have done so. I don't need to prove to others the DM is bad if that's the factor that causes me to leave. He's bad enough for me. It's natural to be polite and not call it bad DMing to call instead an irreconcilable difference of taste. I can agree that sometimes that is the true reason, but I assert there are objective things that makes a DM a bad DM even if those things are not 100% universally accepted as such.

One would hope a bad DM learns from the mistakes, stops doing them, and becomes a good DM. A good sign is a DM who does change when players tell him something they're not liking about how he runs the game presuming of course the players aren't objectively bad themselves trying to Win D&D. The DM who refuses to change and/or calls players who are objecting whiny babies will remain bad DMs. Not even players quitting will convince them, because they will insist on their own self-righteousness. To them no gaming is better than gaming with whiners.

[Tanarii]

although we are discussing the fine points of semantics.Definitely.
However "Bad DM" is something I often see tossed around (and have come mightily close or even outright said myself in different words and been called out on) for what seem to be stylistic type differences. So I'm a little averse to the term.


Doesn't matter if the other players are enjoying the game. If my fun factor is less than my annoyance factor then I leave. I have done so. I don't need to prove to others the DM is bad if that's the factor that causes me to leave. He's bad enough for me. It's natural to be polite and not call it bad DMing to call instead an irreconcilable difference of taste. I can agree that sometimes that is the true reason, but I assert there are objective things that makes a DM a bad DM even if those things are not 100% universally accepted as such.Looking back at some of those words, they include terms that can be variable from one person to another, as well possibly being things that just aren't important to everyone to make it a good game. So for example while I might the pacing in a popular streamed game intolerably slow, and it looks to me like even the players are being bored frequently, either the players aren't bored or there are other factors driving them.

And clearly you believe in Absolute Truths. 😂

But apart from that, yes, the important thing is if you're having fun. And that's what bad gaming means to me, not fun for me. Toxic gaming is a whole 'nother level.

[King of Nowhere]

Definitely.
However "Bad DM" is something I often see tossed around (and have come mightily close or even outright said myself in different words and been called out on) for what seem to be stylistic type differences. So I'm a little averse to the term.
that one looks easy enough.
if the dm is running a campaign with no plot and a lot of repetitive combat, and the players are having fun, then the dm is fine, he's doing what his table likes, and you are the one with artistic differences.
same scenario but the players are not having fun, then the dm is doing it wrong.
i realize there are a lot of corner cases, but in principle if the table likes it that way than dming is adequate.

it's just the same principle for which if someone ties hir sexual partner with ropes and whips hir and they are both having fun then they are good lovers with weird tastes, while if the whipped person is not enjoying it, then it's a criminal offence :smallwink:

[Pauly]

I use “bad” [hobby activity] to mean “not having fun”.
If the group is playing highly optimized , highly goal focussed characters in tightly written scenarios then the goofball doing something crazy is bad.
If we’re playing a relaxed screwball campaign then the highly strung, super competent martinet is bad.
<insert long rambling paragraph with tangential example about why session zero is important>

My experience is that the biggest cause of “bad” gaming is players/GM having different expectations on how to play the game.

[Pex]

Something amusing happened concerning the game I mentioned where I quit because I was accused of cheating for following the rules. I get a Discord message from someone asking me to join their game. I recognize the name, but not from which of the two games I quit. I would learn he is a player from the game I quit due to cheating accusation. Turns out that DM also bailed with no gaming no communication, so he decided to DM his own game and asked me to join. I say yes without thinking much about it.

Come game time we're discussing rules and house rules, a mini-Session 0 before the game. He tells me of the DM had stopped running, and while I knew of personal reasons she discussed for why she may have stopped I also wondered if it was because of my incident being accused of cheating. It turns out this new DM who recruited me was the guy who accused me of cheating! When we were having that conversation that time I wasn't really paying attention to which name was highlighted as talking; I was upset being accused of cheating and trying to make my case.

The DM/accuser did not say the words "I am sorry", but he did acknowledge he was wrong about the rules and was conciliatory with me which I accepted as an apology. I went over again how War Caster feat works, and he was receptive. He ran the game, and I had fun and will continue playing.

A surprising happy ending!

[gbaji]

eh, good point.
on the other hand, if i was in such a game and others would be enjoying themselves, i would not call it a bad game but i would pin it to artistic differences/incompatible styles. although we are discussing the fine points of semantics.

Couple posters have mentioned similar. Sure. If everyone is having a good time, then by definition the game is "good", right? I've certainlly played in games where the whole thing was just a big dungeon, with tons of monsters, and a series of fights, and still had a perfectly good time doing so. Not sure I'd appreciate a long campaign of just that, but for short one shot things? Sure.


- bad: it implies that something is being done wrong
- toxic: there is unnecessary hostility between members of the group

I'd agree with that. A game can certainly be "bad" in the sense that the GM/players are not on the same page, or the game is boring, or just has random stuff happen that makes no sense, power level off, GM forgetting stuff and retroactively changing things, inconsistent rules, etc.

To me "toxic" is about the table environment, not necessarily what's happening with the characters in the game itself.

I can put up with a "bad" game if it's just the former stuff, and if I think there's some improvement over time (we all started somewhere, right?). The latter? Not at all. If I'm not enjoying hanging out with the people I'm playing with, then I'm never going to enjoy the game we're playing. Just walk away if you can IMO.


so, if nothing is being done wrong and the other people are having fun, i would say we have different tastes but the game is not bad nor toxic. if the game is bad we can sit down and talk through our problems and improve, unlesssomeone is being uncooperative - in which case it's a toxic game.
i can see myself being in a group of total strangers and leaving the game instead of putting in the effort to fix it, though

Yeah. Sometimes a game is just not your cup of tea. Nothing wrong about that. Doesn't even have to be "bad" at all. I'd certainly talk to the GM (and other players as well, to see if they feel the same way) and see if some changes can be made, but at the end of the day, if it's just you and everyone else is enjoying themselves? it's unfair for you to put your enjoyment ahead of everyone else.

Some people like dungeon crawls. Some people like monty haul. Some people like the GM to put outcome ahead of action/choices. Who am I to get in the way of their fun?


Something amusing happened concerning the game I mentioned where I quit because I was accused of cheating for following the rules. I get a Discord message from someone asking me to join their game. I recognize the name, but not from which of the two games I quit. I would learn he is a player from the game I quit due to cheating accusation. Turns out that DM also bailed with no gaming no communication, so he decided to DM his own game and asked me to join. I say yes without thinking much about it.

Come game time we're discussing rules and house rules, a mini-Session 0 before the game. He tells me of the DM had stopped running, and while I knew of personal reasons she discussed for why she may have stopped I also wondered if it was because of my incident being accused of cheating. It turns out this new DM who recruited me was the guy who accused me of cheating! When we were having that conversation that time I wasn't really paying attention to which name was highlighted as talking; I was upset being accused of cheating and trying to make my case.

The DM/accuser did not say the words "I am sorry", but he did acknowledge he was wrong about the rules and was conciliatory with me which I accepted as an apology. I went over again how War Caster feat works, and he was receptive. He ran the game, and I had fun and will continue playing.

A surprising happy ending!

Ok. That's funny. But sometimes things work out like that. Hopefully, that'll remain the case, and the new GM wont retrurn to previous form. It also highlights the different perspective as player versus GM.

I've seen it in the other direction (which is really tricky). Had a GM who just plain misread a section of the rules, and had it in his head that a specific magical bit in the game worked very differently from how it was actually written in the rules. The rules made sense and created balance of cost to reward. His interpretation essentially made one particular type of character almost impossible to play (the cost to use their abilities were constant recurring costs instead of a "one time" thing like the rules said). I was the first player to play that particular type of character in the game rules, so I tried pointing out what the rules actually said, and what the consequences were for his interpretation. He basically blew up at me instead.

Yeah. That was "bad". And unfortunately, there isn't much you can do if the GM is the one doing this. Hopefully, it'll all work out though.

[Jay R]

Not to be that guy, but....

If everyone else is fine; are you putting your needs above the groups by insisting on doing something else because you are the one not having fun?

This is not intended to be a jab, it is intending to seek to understand; as we all have different thinking styles and biases we bring to our posts. That is what makes this board solid.

This question is based on the assumptions that
1. I know that everybody else is enjoying the current game, and
2. I know that they would not enjoy the proposed new game at least as much.
Neither of these is inherently true.

It is better for five people to do something that all five will enjoy than to do something only four of them enjoy. But the only way to find out is to bring it up.

Besides, if I don't speak up because "I'm the only one not enjoying it", then the others don't know I'm not enjoying it. They might all be in the same situation, not having fun and not bringing it up because they don't want to put their fun in front of other people's. That could lead to five people not having fun, and not changing because not one of them brought up the topic.

I was once in a game which had grown stale. I was bored, but didn't want to say anything. We were trying to set up the next session, and nobody seemed all that excited. When one person asked, "Would you rather I start running a D&D game?", we all enthusiastically said "Yes!"

He started a great campaign, which only happened because he suggested we change what we were doing.

Suggesting an idea to people is fine. Trying to force them into my idea after they say "No" is not fine. Don't confuse the two.

[kyoryu]

"Bad" doesn't have to mean someone is doing something wrong. It just really means "bad for me". It might be awesome for someone else.

It means "I'm not having fun." No more, no less.

Toxic means something more like "this game is causing me emotional distress."

[Quertus]

And unfortunately, there isn't much you can do if the GM is the one doing this.

My goto is to try to have a discussion with them like a reasonable person. And, if they fail to be a reasonable person, and the group sees this, to kick them out of the group. Problem solved.

[Zuras]

It seems like there are at least three separate issues in a possible bad game. You can have a bad table, bad GM, or a bad RPG itself.

There’s not much you can do about an actually toxic table other than leaving or ejecting the problem player, but most people will put up with merely annoying players almost indefinitely. I have GMed for tons of players with less than stellar social skills, shy players, or just low energy players, and it’s only really a problem if you have too many of them at a given table.

Similarly, people get annoyed with a GM that doesn’t fit your preferred style, doesn’t have compelling delivery, or just takes too long to run combats because they don’t control cross-talk at the table. I’ve seen plenty of players quit games for those reasons, but never without having another regular game.

I’ve literally never seen anyone quit a game purely because they didn’t like the system. It’s obviously possible in theory, but I don’t see how it can happen in practice. If the GM and the other players are all great, then the GM will just ditch a bad system if it isn’t working, or you will have fun despite the system.

[NichG]

It seems like there are at least three separate issues in a possible bad game. You can have a bad table, bad GM, or a bad RPG itself.

There’s not much you can do about an actually toxic table other than leaving or ejecting the problem player, but most people will put up with merely annoying players almost indefinitely. I have GMed for tons of players with less than stellar social skills, shy players, or just low energy players, and it’s only really a problem if you have too many of them at a given table.

Similarly, people get annoyed with a GM that doesn’t fit your preferred style, doesn’t have compelling delivery, or just takes too long to run combats because they don’t control cross-talk at the table. I’ve seen plenty of players quit games for those reasons, but never without having another regular game.

I’ve literally never seen anyone quit a game purely because they didn’t like the system. It’s obviously possible in theory, but I don’t see how it can happen in practice. If the GM and the other players are all great, then the GM will just ditch a bad system if it isn’t working, or you will have fun despite the system.

There are certainly games where I have decided not to join in the first place because of the system they wanted to use, but that doesn't make that group wanting to play with that system invalid. Like, I have friends who really like Ten Candles, and its not invalid for them to like it, but I know that it wouldn't be the game for me so I wouldn't join if that's what they want to try running on a given week. For different reasons I tend to give FATE a wide berth because even with a good GM and group of players I find that there's a way that FATE tends to channel one into thinking about the nature of the game reality that I just don't enjoy being subject to.

It doesn't mean its invalid for groups to run games in those systems, but I'll sit those campaigns out. It's bad gaming for me.

[Luccan]

If I'm not enjoying a game, I don't see the point in playing it for hours on end every week. Particularly if I have to leave my house for it; at that point it's basically a part-time job. I've had genuine spend-non-work-time-together friends at my jobs and while they made work better, I would rather have seen them when we weren't working. On the other hand, I've had friends that were only friends because we were forced to spend time together at work and we didn't miss each other when I stopped working there enough to seek each other out after. And my genuine friends and I made the time to see each other elsewhere in our schedules and it was more enjoyable than at work.

The big difference between a job and bad games is that while I was doing something I didn't enjoy for work, I was getting paid, which I need to do to afford food and housing. I do not need to play bad games.

If bad game night is literally the only time the people I actually want to spend time with are available, then I would assume we're good enough friends that I can ask to rotate something into our gaming sessions I enjoy more. I expect a group of adult friends to be able to compromise. And yeah, I still might not love game night but I'd probably like it more.

[Easy e]

This thread reminds me why it is so hard to find a reliable game group for in person games.

[Tanarii]

If bad game night is literally the only time the people I actually want to spend time with are available, then I would assume we're good enough friends that I can ask to rotate something into our gaming sessions I enjoy more. I expect a group of adult friends to be able to compromise. And yeah, I still might not love game night but I'd probably like it more.Reasonable perspective. I understand you're just speaking for yourself, just jumping off your perspective to contrast to another: Lots of folks don't play with friends.

Having done both, I usually prefer NOT to play with friends any more. Those games last longer. Ones with friends fall apart because we all enjoy doing a variety of things together, so staying focused on just one for a very long period is hard. :smallamused:

[Luccan]

Reasonable perspective. I understand you're just speaking for yourself, just jumping off your perspective to contrast to another: Lots of folks don't play with friends.

Having done both, I usually prefer NOT to play with friends any more. Those games last longer. Ones with friends fall apart because we all enjoy doing a variety of things together, so staying focused on just one for a very long period is hard. :smallamused:

Fair, that's a valid way to play. As someone whose friends play in a group, I even see the appeal. But at this point I think we're running into differences in interpretation of a "Bad game". Because I'm interpreting "game" in the sense of a campaign or gaming group, not the specific game being played. If the rules themselves are bad but you don't care that's one thing. If the rules or table behavior are so bad that you're not having fun, that's another.

I think using your free time to hang out with people you wouldn't want to spend additional time around for no other purpose than than to play a game you aren't enjoying is a waste. If you're gonna have to do your hobbies with people you don't otherwise consider friends then you should at least enjoy the hobby. And if you're enjoying yourself, then it's probably not that "bad"

[Tanarii]

I think using your free time to hang out with people you wouldn't want to spend additional time around for no other purpose than than to play a game you aren't enjoying is a waste.
Absolutely. I have a bunch of hobbies I do with folks I don't know well outside the hobby. But ultimately they're just someone I associate with for the hobby, just like I associate with coworkers for my job.

Of course, my ability to tolerate annoying people depends on how much I'm getting 'paid', in Money, a sense of accomplishment, or fun. But my hobbies only pay out two of these and the fun one tends to go down with annoying people.

[Jay R]

One other thought. This assumes that you can find players. But if mediocre RPG is available, then you can.

The alternatives aren't merely bad RPG or mediocre RPG. You can also choose to run a satisfying RPG instead of playing in a mediocre one.

[When I was a kid, my Mom would say, "You can criticize the housekeeping all you want, from the right end of a mop." Similarly, you can criticize the RPG all you want, if you are willing to get behind the DM screen.]

[Easy e]

One other thought. This assumes that you can find players. But if mediocre RPG is available, then you can.

The alternatives aren't merely bad RPG or mediocre RPG. You can also choose to run a satisfying RPG instead of playing in a mediocre one.

[When I was a kid, my Mom would say, "You can criticize the housekeeping all you want, from the right end of a mop." Similarly, you can criticize the RPG all you want, if you are willing to get behind the DM screen.]

Only if you want to be the forever GM.

I agree with the premise despite my snark. If the game is not entertaining you, the first question is what can you bring to the table to make it better? The second question is, what are you going to run for them next time?

That is what I did. I finished up the campaign we were in and then made a pitch for the next game that was accepted. After my rotation is done, we all ready have the next game lined up from a different GM and system.

If I had left this game, or insisted on playing something else; I doubt I would have had the opportunity to pitch for the next game. You sometimes have to bend in order to keep the group going.