PDA

View Full Version : What do you look for in a game?



DMfromTheAbyss
2008-10-18, 11:02 AM
Pretty much as the title says, some people seem mostly concerned with what game system is being run, some see who you are gaming with as the deciding factor, but when your looking to join up with a new group what tells you that this group is or is not acceptable to you?

I ask becouse I've had some serious problems recruiting for my game and I'm wondering what sort of things people look at for first impressions so hopefully I can stop scaring off new players.

Along these lines anybody have good ways to find new players aside from the usual internet usergroup or posting at hobbyshops?

Also Also wik..
What does everybody consider deal breakers in a game, at what point do you say the game's not worth it and walk. I've heard much advice around the forum to the point of you can always find another game, but with the apparent lack of gamers in my area is this a case where scarcity should affect how much you can put up with, I ask this as a player not a DM becouse I've tried several other games and found a disturbing lack of fun, the few really promising games keep falling apart due to real life issues (people's schedules changing etc) so should you make due with a subpar game if you can't find anything better?

bosssmiley
2008-10-18, 01:05 PM
"It’s an absolute distillation of the superhero genre. No plot lines, characters, emotions, nothing whatsoever. It’s people posing in the street for no good reason. It is people getting kicked, and then exploding. It is a pure comic book, and I will fight anyone who says otherwise. And afterwards, they will explode."
-- Warren Ellis

This -comics, +games. :smallcool:

Drascin
2008-10-18, 01:41 PM
When I enter a game (not that I ever do - lack of DMs have relegated me to eternal DM), I look, avobe all, for a good time. This requires the players being willing to not screw each other over, the DM trying to make everyone have fun, and the PCs can make a big difference in the world.

My deal-breaker, usually, is when "simulationism" is touted as a good descriptor of the campaign. Not because of itself, but because it is usually a hallmark of a kind of game mentality I abhor - the one where you have to make note of every candle in your backpack, or being a spellcaster means having to spend long, boring sessions looking for components, or trying to do a particularly badass swashbuckling stunt means the DM looks at you in disbelief and tells you that's stupid.

Emperor Tippy
2008-10-18, 01:51 PM
Depends on the system, my mood, and lots of other factors.

Generally a good world, note that I didn't say plot I said world. I much prefer sandbox type games where the DM is just running the world and leaves the PC's on there own to figure out what to do (generally the initial goal is decided before the game starts). If the players want to overthrow the kingdom thats fine, if they want to construct a city thats fine, if they want to run a dire tiger breeding farm and train them as riding animals for their dire tiger calvary that's fine as well.

Matthew
2008-10-18, 02:25 PM
Always the people; if the people are jerks, the game will suck. With a good bunch of people it doesn't much matter what game you are playing.

Calinero
2008-10-18, 02:33 PM
I want a gaming group that knows how to have fun, but doesn't let it get in the way a good game. You always want to have a balance--don't be so busy playing that you stop having fun, but don't let your entire game get sidetracked. I also like games that emphasize roleplaying to an extent, but it's also good to get a few good fights into any game.

Ravyn
2008-10-18, 03:00 PM
OOC: A good group and plenty of collaboration.

IC: PC agency, well-developed world and characters. And I would prefer, if I can get it, a sense of wonder. A lot of GMs don't see themselves as having time to project atmosphere, but in my opinion, that's almost as important a function of a roleplaying game as the action itself, and more important than the combat. And it does so much for the world!

Saph
2008-10-18, 03:28 PM
Always the people; if the people are jerks, the game will suck. With a good bunch of people it doesn't much matter what game you are playing.

Seconded.

I find that, having tried out a lot of groups, I can tell very quickly now whether I'm going to enjoy a game or not. It's about the social feel; listening to how the players interact with each other. The system doesn't really matter (though I prefer ones I know).

Interestingly, it works in reverse too; I get new players joining my group all the time, and I find I can usually tell if they're going to be back.

- Saph

Satyr
2008-10-18, 03:41 PM
Nice people to play this are an absolute prerequisite of any good game. I lkie to playy with people I consider as friends and who can tolerate my quirks. That is nothing I specially look forbut something that is a very basis.

Things I particularly enjoy in a game is a plausible setting, focused on a simulation of the world and does not treat the PC's as if the world is only turning around them.Versimilitued is the most important trait of a good game for me in the design of the world.
On the level of the gameplay, I like to play my character also as plausible as possible, but I am also quite fond of a tactical challenge and to come up with plans and tactics, when I can have a tactical competition with the gamemaster.

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-10-18, 04:36 PM
So basically the main thing is having people that could be friends. A good well thought out self consistant world helps, and having some good chalenges is also a plus. Some go for specific gaming philosophies (sandbox vs rail tracks)and specific rules/systems/genre rates a distant 5th.

I'm still trying to see where my problem is here, possibly the large portion of problems have simply been people being incompatible, but I'm wondering if some of it might have to do with specifics... (which at least I can theoretically do something about as opposed to people disliking me off first impressions apparently)

I would describe my group (all 2 of the players plus me) as extremely laid back and friendly, the world is a campaign that has lasted going on 15 years, so well thought out it certainly is, and as in college I had several players who would spend hours debating the physics and magical underlying theory of it (yes we did this for fun) it's remarkably self consistant. I have everything designed to pretty much challenge any level of play, though I make an effort to keep the players alive and happy (unless they do something stupid, then I get realistic). My personal gaming philosophy is very sand boxish within certain constraints (as in there is a bunch of plots moving around at any given point which can sweep up the PC's in the course of events though what they do whithin the framework is up to them.)

If there is a problem I can see it's that I have heavily homebrewed the rules. (I pretty much rewrote a Players handbook of statistical adjustments and rules the game has picked up over the years to make things work for all classes, think of it as a deadlier high damage lower HP version of 4rth ed and you are close.) A few players who left after a session stated difficulties with my "not running edition X" or not using "houserule X". Several others were upset that the monsters required actual fighting, they being used to a very unchallenging 3.5 game, (I played in it for 2 sessions and we got 1/10th of the way up a level, and I never even got attacked...)

I guess I have to find some open minded players like some of you, who actually want to have fun and be challenged, though from the quality of gamer I've seen in my area I'm starting to despair that might not happen.

Morty
2008-10-18, 04:40 PM
I guess I could say that in a game, I'l looking for a feeling that I'm a part of a large, different world that doesn't revolve around me and I have to put an effort into making it different. I'm also looking for an opportunity to play a role I have in mind. When I play D&D, there's also an element of tactics and planning, but that's secondary.

valadil
2008-10-18, 06:11 PM
Mostly I look for a world that I can interact with. I want a give and take relationship with it, rather than a scenic view.

Prometheus
2008-10-18, 08:21 PM
Always the people; if the people are jerks, the game will suck. With a good bunch of people it doesn't much matter what game you are playing. +2
This is how I feel, I can learn any system if the people are cool.

Unfortunately, not everyone feels that way. Some people, especially those who are new to table-top RPGs, feel like RPG systems that aren't well known brands are too niche, nerdy, complicated, or unreliable. Of course they aren't, but probably D&D, d20 Modern, Mutants and Masterminds, or Star Wars are going to be your most likely path to finding players.

If you are affiliated with a high school or college, I think that would be a good place to post. I know someone who had played an online game with a guy for a year before discovering he went to the same high school as him.

That being said, chat-room games are not a bad idea. They record everything that happens, they encourage people to think before they type, and they are a shield that helps some people roleplayer or speak more openly. There is some (http://www.openrpg.com/) software (http://rptools.net/doku.php?id=home) designed to uses maps and tokens, has chat boxes, and/or will connects to servers with players.

LotharBot
2008-10-18, 10:41 PM
The Group:

- everybody is there to have a good time playing the game. (Seems obvious, but there are people who go to games just to have someone to whine at, or to play some different game on their handheld game system and occasionally look up from it.)

- everybody is willing to work together toward a common goal in-game; nobody wants to take over or fight against the other players (there are exceptions where this is actually fun for everyone; those are OK.)

- everybody is accepting of personal differences (religious, political, lifestyle, etc.) It's OK to give advice or mention the existence of such differences, but when somebody wants to use the game as their soapbox, that's lame.

- everybody respects everyone else's time. They make the effort to show up on time (or early if necessary), they make in-game decisions in a fair amount of time, they don't interrupt other people's turns with off-topic chatter, etc. Also key: the DM doesn't cancel the game or suddenly switch to a new setting just after I've spent hours building a cool character, backstory, and custom abilities.

The Game Mechanic:

- must not be a waste of time. If I'm being asked to track every spell component in my pouch, or to roll dice for tying my shoes, or to spend a lot of time doing computations and looking stuff up, then I'm NOT using that time and mental effort to develop my character or overcome challenges. (Learning a new system takes time, but the hope is that veteran players will provide rules help so I can play my character as I learn.)

- must be consistent. The DM shouldn't thoughtlessly change rules on the fly, or make things unnecessarily hard on the players.

- must allow me enough freedom to play something interesting, and to do creative things.

The Game Itself:

- is as advertised. I'm OK with playing a silly game like wushu, or a serious and philosophical game of exalted, but I'm not real interested in gearing up for a philosophical game and then finding it's not.

- has something to inspire me and grab my imagination. It can be a beautiful and epic world, or a hilariously funny scenario and end boss, or an interesting approach to a philosophical question, or even just a cool new mechanic.

Deal Breakers:

- jerk players, players with "issues", DMs with control problems, etc.

- games with too much accounting, bookkeeping, or poorly thought-out rules that force the DM or players to waste time closing loopholes instead of playing.

- games that just don't provide any ability for me to do anything interesting.

TempusCCK
2008-10-18, 11:56 PM
A dealbreaker for me in a recent game was an overabundance of Deus Ex Machinas, coupled with a DM who did next to nothing to curb player in-fighting, encouraged Rogues to steal from the party because 'that's what a rogue would do' and was introduced NPC's that were levels and levels ahead of the PC's, and they could do everything. It was not uncommon to see Mages who knew every spell known to man and could cast them more times than a sorceror a day, and had Rogue and Fighter skills on top of it.

I got tired of playing in over-powered scenarios and watching the NPC's be both more heroic than me and all knowing.

Swordguy
2008-10-19, 12:09 AM
Always the people; if the people are jerks, the game will suck. With a good bunch of people it doesn't much matter what game you are playing.

Thirded. Or Fourthed. Or Something.

I have to admit, though, that entering a group and finding the first priority of the rest of the group is maximal optimization (and characterization is last, if a priority at all) is generally a deal-breaker.

In my experience (for all you jerks who are about to scream "STORMWIND FALLACY!" at me), groups that are concerned about optimization as a high priority tend not to be fun people to be around. If I want to talk to that sort of person, I can go to the World of Warcraft forums. I can think of exactly two people in my 23 years of gaming that disprove that theory, so I'm comfortable making the assumption.

If the words "Character over build" or "Story Serves the Rules" get me funny or annoyed looks, I'm out.

Totally Guy
2008-10-19, 05:07 AM
Several others were upset that the monsters required actual fighting, they being used to a very unchallenging 3.5 game, (I played in it for 2 sessions and we got 1/10th of the way up a level, and I never even got attacked...)

Remember that if you are running a game with a sandbox philosophy sometimes the player will want to go out and fight the orc that stole the farm girl's bucket. The level approriateness concept can be hinted upon, how easy the players think the challenge will be, but ultimately not everything will challenge the players and if the players are seeking out these easy problems they should have the option to find them.

Also heavy house rules are intimidating to new players. If new to roleplaying they may not see any outside benefit to learning the system your way when everybody else outside the group knows the system the standard way.

Kiero
2008-10-19, 06:33 AM
I find most systems actively annoying to deal with, so system comes first. Then setting - again there are some I won't go near with a barge pole. Once those are dealt with, then I start thinking about the people.

Even with the greatest group of people in the world, I'll still find a system I don't like detracts from my fun. Especially if it's crunchy and invasive.