What makes you stay in new games?

[Pikka]

Heya guys! I'm looking around for some opinions concerning new roleplaying games.

Generally speaking, what is it that pulls you into a new roleplaying game and gives that feeling that says "Well, yes. I think I do want to spend time and effort to dive into this world/universe alongside this community" ?

How important is the world building and setting compared to the rules? My sense is that there is a general high opinion of the setting here in Sweden, but that the more 'game:y' approach with d&d, using a more heavy focus on game mechanics play a larger part abroad. I would find it interesting to hear more of people's general opinion and estimation.

Does a specific setting help you feel at ease with the product? I'm thinking fantasy, sci fi or the like.

How much does the artwork and graphical design help out?

How about if a game tries something completely new, or is it better with something tried and true to get you to stick around?

Thanks for your time!

[ComaVision]

No problem! I'm practically desperate to play instead of DM, so I'll pretty much play in anything with any rule set with any quality of DM.

I suppose that's probably not very helpful.

[Quertus]

Hard to say. Here's a few random thoughts on (my opinion on) the subject:

Plan text is fine, art is just a bonus to help locate rules by memory. A good ToC / index is better than art.

Why would I pay more money for something I already have? Especially after 4e D&D burned us, and taught us that newer isn't always better? So it depends on what you mean as to how I measure the value of "tried and true".

Can I build what I want to? Does it perform like I'd expect? If my invisible, 6" tall master burglar can be spotted by your average 5-year-old, while he is pinning an ancient vampire to the ground, you've probably failed.

What kind of stories do you walk away with? "And then we spent two hours fighting the system to determine whether we could safely cross the road"? "And then the low-level princes rescued the epic character"? "If you combine this, and this, and this, and..."? "This is the 5th fight in a row I've been one-shotted without even getting a turn"?

Is it selling something I'm not buying? (FATAL)

Did the person running it run a game in a style I can enjoy? Sadly, through no fault of the system, there are several systems I've been deincentivized to play by the GM. So, "the kind of person who would run this system" matters.

But, most important to me us having a character I care about, getting to do cool stuff with said character, the game not interfering with me role-playing that character or otherwise getting in the way, and everything being consistent.

Did that help?

EDIT: I have a long and not so glorious history of never being satisfied with attempting to integrate my characters into an existing setting. That, and I could easily rant about GMs abuse of characters in my backstory. So I always run characters who are "not from around here".

But, exploitation is one of my primary "aesthetics". So I'll happily explore a cool setting, both in character and OOC, if the GM lets me. So, depending on the GM, setting can be great, or it can be wasted effort.

[Final Hyena]

To clarify are you talking about new campaigns or new game systems?

For campaigns it's;

• A DM who knows his stuff & cares about the world & the players.
• Players who aren't bullies or chaotic stupid.
• When all the players are the DM are looking for the same type of campaign.
• A good amount of RP.

For systems it's;

• New mechanics that work well.
• concise and easy to understand text/mechanics (seriously can you just add some junk in after the important bits to reach that 300 page mark?).
• character creation that offers decent diversity.
• Good balance between character options.
• unique settings aspects that add something (fun) to the game beyond the background.

[Pikka]

To clarify are you talking about new campaigns or new game systems?

I'm mostly talking about a game system, or rather a product that introduces a game system and a narrative world.

If you see the product in the store, what would make you want to buy it? And then, when you have it, what would make you keep playing and creating content for it rather than selling it off or forgetting about it at the bottom of a box? :)

You have some nice suggestions there already, but would you care to elaborate?

[Pikka]

No problem! I'm practically desperate to play instead of DM, so I'll pretty much play in anything with any rule set with any quality of DM.

I suppose that's probably not very helpful.

You don't have a favoured kind of setting or ruleset? Anything you'd feel just a little more pumped about to play in general?

[Pikka]

Did that help?

Yes, indeed. It is nice to get some insight to how people play and what they value. It sounds to me like the games you have been participating in are more 'game:y' in nature, with roleplaying and setting being more of a flair and added depth rather than the sole focus?

[Quertus]

Yes, indeed. It is nice to get some insight to how people play and what they value. It sounds to me like the games you have been participating in are more 'game:y' in nature, with roleplaying and setting being more of a flair and added depth rather than the sole focus?

Short answer: sure.

Long answer:

In general, I'm fun > realism/consistency > game play > story, with role-playing living at the level of realism / consistency. Which makes sense, at least to me, because I view role-playing ~= playing a consistent, believable character.

But I also enjoy pure war games, like Battletech. If I'm playing a Role Playing Game, I expect to be able to role play, and for any rules that exist regarding role-playing to be no worse than having no rules whatsoever. Actually, you can generalize that to pretty much any of the rules - they'd literally better be better than nothing! Sadly, many rules aren't better than nothing - like Rule 0, or pretty much all of FATAL.

And I'm kinda hard to pin down, because I have a +24 bonus to grapple because I like to game with diverse groups. You don't have to have any skill at role-playing to game with me (although, if you can't separate player knowledge and character knowledge, expect that I won't be interested in discussing things OOC (as there, obviously, is no such thing in such cases)).

But one of my favorite experiences was gaming with a group that would do what I consider putting role-playing first: whenever the character in their head responded differently than how you played them, they would ask why your character acted the way that they did. It was a great opportunity to get insight into the way everyone played their character, what really made them tick. It was also very cool Pavlovian rewards, because understanding your character = spotlight time.

And, as I said, I'd love to explore a rich, well thought out, consistent setting. I'm perfectly happy with setting being the primary focus, or at least tied for first place with role-playing. I just can't claim much experience with that... perhaps because of my bad memory.

EDIT: here's another PoV: good mechanics are required. Good setting is optional, but, when it exists, it's a huge force multiplier to good mechanics - so long as I can be "not from around here", and the GM lets me explore the setting. Otherwise, the setting is a waste of paper, for me.

[Milo v3]

I prefer mechanics and good art, rather than setting simply because I generally don't find most RPG settings that interesting and make up my own instead (and especially since I know my players never actually read pre-made settings). Preferably the mechanics should allow the game to do something other games cannot, like emphasising certain styles of play or certain genres.

[oxybe]

The rules.

If I wanted to do is tell someone a story, I'd do just that tell them a story. If I wanted to tell a shared story with a group of friends, I'd also do just that. No need to spend money on books.

If I'm going to buy a game and play it, it's likely because there is something about the rules that have hooked me. Art, setting, fluff as a whole I can do without.

The game mechanics, the actual play, tells me a much more truthful story then the books ever did and paints a much clearer picture of the kind of people living within the game world.

I may be biased, but I personally keep falling back on this example of a failure of the rules and narrative: 2nd edition D&D gives the likes of Cuculain and Hercules as examples of fighters in the book, yet playing the game will tell you a much different story.

You are not actually Herc. You're some largely disposable sack of meat.

The story the rules actually tell is rather different then the one presented in the book and one i'm far more interested in hearing. The kind of characters that live within the scope of those rules, the kind of characters that try to work around it's limitations, those that curse the rules... the game rules should largely inform the narrative IMO, which is why I don't really need a setting, metaplot or much fluff.

[Final Hyena]

If you see the product in the store, what would make you want to buy it?

I don't normally browse shops for games. I usually get games based on recommendations of others or because I've read in a forum about a new game that does something mechanically good. I also sometimes search for games that do x.

And then, when you have it, what would make you keep playing and creating content for it rather than selling it off or forgetting about it at the bottom of a box? :)

The mechanics are (fairly) easy to learn.
The book is well laid out, with what I what to find in places that make sense.
The mechanics create a particular style of play (preferably without being too bloated).
The book leaves filler until the end.
The different options available for character creation/progression are interesting, allow for diverse characters and are equally valuable.

The setting isn't the most important thing to me as that is the easiest part to make up on my own, and I like GMs who do so creating a place that is new to be explored. Because of this I like a game that has a setting with a lot of wiggle room to keep many themes but in a new place, as such games with many planets/planes are good for this. Because most groups are around the 4-6 player mark a world is usually better suited to them if it is in some kind of chaotic disarray (e.g. apocalyptic settings) as it makes sense for a small group to be able to get into lots of hi-jinks without being tied down to organisation x and make a difference. Another good thing is unanswered questions, this allows every new campaign to address them in a unique way again giving GMs more wiggle room for putting in content that players don't just know because they've read the book.

[Quertus]

I don't normally browse shops for games. I usually get games based on recommendations of others or because I've read in a forum about a new game that does something mechanically good. I also sometimes search for games that do x.


The mechanics are (fairly) easy to learn.
The book is well laid out, with what I what to find in places that make sense.
The mechanics create a particular style of play (preferably without being too bloated).
The book leaves filler until the end.
The different options available for character creation/progression are interesting, allow for diverse characters and are equally valuable.

The setting isn't the most important thing to me as that is the easiest part to make up on my own, and I like GMs who do so creating a place that is new to be explored. Because of this I like a game that has a setting with a lot of wiggle room to keep many themes but in a new place, as such games with many planets/planes are good for this. Because most groups are around the 4-6 player mark a world is usually better suited to them if it is in some kind of chaotic disarray (e.g. apocalyptic settings) as it makes sense for a small group to be able to get into lots of hi-jinks without being tied down to organisation x and make a difference. Another good thing is unanswered questions, this allows every new campaign to address them in a unique way again giving GMs more wiggle room for putting in content that players don't just know because they've read the book.

You said a lot of good things; I want to focus on two.

First off, yes, it is very important, to me, that the rules not be intrinsically tied to the setting. I want people - both myself and others - to be able to create lots of unique, individual settings that use the rules. Because Exploration, as I said, is one of my main "Aesthetics", and I want to get to explore as many people's settings as possible using these rules.

Allowing for diverse characters is another huge plus that I completely forgot about. Good call! Replay value is important to me - both in how long one can continue playing the same character, and how many different characters one can viably play (or, I suppose, how many viable characters interest me).

Also, when you said, "The mechanics create a particular style of play (preferably without being too bloated)."... what exactly do you mean by that?

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm dyslexic. I'd prefer a prettier product, but lay out is way more important for me. I need to be able to easily read this and find what I need. Good headings is a must, as is making the text actually visible. Yes, that background image is very nice, but I can't read it.

For the setting, I want a setting that can handle games of varying tone within a greater theme. For instance, for cyberpunk, you could have combat in the wastes, a film noir style investigation or corporate espionage. Don't try to cram in everything into every setting, but the setting should support games that are at least moderately different in play style, but still fitting to that theme.

The setting should really focus on what it is. It should have enough details of life to really represent how characters live, but it's fine (if not advised) to have a few unknown areas for DMs to play with. Basically, it should feel like a living, breathing world to me with things being thought out. I really hate games that basically toss a few details onto the NPCs without really establishing a culture that makes sense or gives that ren-fair vibe.

Simple, but stylish graphics in black and white are a good choice for cheaper graphics, in my opinion and work just fine. If I want to hook players into games, having LGBT and characters of varying races looking bad-*** is a really nice start for me. (Because that's what my players are, after all.)

[Fable Wright]

For me, you need one thing:

Does this game set my imagination on fire? If so, a lot can be forgiven.

Eberron, in its original campaign setting, did not. It gave me a lot of rules for factions and mechanics, but didn't really impress on me what Eberron was about. Then I read the 4e Eberron Campaign Guide, and I turned into a huge fan of the setting, because... well, it set my mind alight with possibility. Plot hooks abound, there are unusual cultures and civilizations, there's room to be airship pirates fighting against the kings of the storms or a political machination game where you deal with magic cyberpunk distopia via megacorps or a game where you chart the fate of small nations like Droaam or the Lhazaar Principalities. Characters have agency, and there's room for them to be unique and world-changing. This gets my imagination going, and now I buy Eberron books even if I'll never find a group that uses them.

Unknown Armies sets my imagination on fire because of how well it fuels itself. Any weird thing in real life can be recast and made into a plot. The world is explocitly a sandbox for the players to definitively change the world in. The mechanics of Adepts and Avatars, and the possibilities of their powers, adds endless possibilities to chew on. So I forgive its poorly implemented mechanics and occasional arrogance as a setting.

Rules light? Appeals to the older crowd. Rules heavy? Appeals to a younger audience that loves tinkering with numbers. Pictures? Sometimes great, sometimes terrible, mostly a matter of taste. Something designed to give power to the players, and can be played in more than a handful of story structures? That's something universally desired.

[Knaight]

It needs to stick with me. The biggest thing that I've noticed here is just how it's written - catching my eye with style counts for a lot, and a system can get pretty far on that (Chronica Feudalis, Microscope, REIGN). I also tend to favor systems that do something different; if I see a D&D knockoff or another generic dicepool system or the like I pretty much stop reading. If there's something in the mechanics that really stands out (The four subsystems in Chronica Feudalis, everything in Microscope, the two axis matching dice pool and organizational mechanics in REIGN, the trait ladder and the scale mechanic in Fudge), it's more likely to actually get played. Then there's setting, where I'll pay attention to mechanics there to support stuff that doesn't come up in most settings but is tailored to an odd one, largely to see if there are either mechanics or individual setting elements to steal (the dogfighting mechanics in Warbirds, along with much of the setting).

There's also certain genres that I like that tend not to see a lot, and that makes games more likely to see use. The bar for a wuxia game is much lower than the bar for a standard fantasy game, both because of the utter glut of standard fantasy games and how much I dislike the generic fantasy setting.

[Yora]

As a GM, I've been switching systems any time I found something that lets me do things in a simpler way with fewer rules I have to explain and modifiers I need to track. Currently I am at BX/LotFP; i doubt I'll be moving on from that anytime soon.

(Barbarians of Lemuria and WEG Star Wars are the other games I am keeping ready to be used when needed.)

[Honest Tiefling]

Currently I am at BX/LotFP...

I'm curious, the heck is that?

[Joe the Rat]

Rules matching theme is important. If you want flamboyant swashbucklery, the rules should encourage, or at the very least not punish you for doing something besides "hit it with a stick". If you are doing a dark horror setting, hilarious fumbles break the mood. The rules making you an incompetent boob by default is fine for DCC or Paranoia, but for a spy game or a high heroics, it can be frustrating. A game with a strong narrative theme should have explicit ways for characters to interact with the narrative, not just react to it. Stuff like that.

Organization and layout is important. Make it clear what is rules, what is world, what each section covers, etc.

Art does sell a game, but it needs to be appropriate. If you are delivering a serious tone, cartoon art isn't going to cut it. It you're delivering TOON, those animals damn well better be wearing gloves! Color is good, but I grew up in an era of black and white interiors. That's not a deal breaker for me.

Be wary of custom required accessories. dice pools and polyhedrons are typical, but if you have specialized die (FATE, FFG Star Wars, Zocchi dice games), you need to make it easy to substitute or simulate with "normal" options, or include it in your Starter Box.

I'm curious, the heck is that?

B/X is Basic/Expert D&D (Holmes edition, I think?). Erol Otus artwork on the cover.
LotFP is Lamentations of the Flame Princess, a tweaked version in the same vein with a little more character, and a lot more weird. And a stable of generally inappropriate adventures. It's awesome.

[Yora]

There is a free version of just the (really quite generic) rules of Lamentations of the Flame ..Princess without the controversial and setting-specific art. It's worth checking out and a good introduction to oldschool D&D for people familiar with d20 games.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'll bite, why were the characters/art controversial? I suppose it'll be helpful to the OP to know people's opinion on that sort of thing.

[Yora]

Plenty of gore and nudity. Nothing I would personally consider problematic, but lots of people are very touchy about those.
In addition to the rulebook, LotFP is primarily a line of adventures that are mostly horror, set in 16th to 18th century Europe. And there's plenty of disturbing nightmare stuff in many of them, though mostly in not excessive degrees. Nothing of that is actually present in the rules, though, except for there being no fireball and lightning bolt spells and a 1st level summoning spell that will get you really bizarre things from beyond this universe. Other than that it's a generic fantasy game.

[Honest Tiefling]

Plenty of gore and nudity.

This may sound like a dumb question, but...Not in the same image, right? I don't know about others, but I don't mind a bit of skin but I'd really prefer it stay away from the images of battle.

[Yora]

Especially in the same picture!

That's the special aesthetic style of the adventures. With one pretty tame exception it's never about the sexy. It's usually meant to be gross.
You can just do a simple image search for Lamentations of the Flame Princess and some examples of the art style should show up.

My own campaigns don't look anything like that, though. As the rules are written, they are still just Basic D&D with some very neat tweaks. (Specialist class, attack bonus, encumbrance, all weapons and armor for everyone.)

[Jay R]

If I trust the GM, I will play in his game - pretty much automatically.

If I don't trust the GM, I will not play in his game - absolutely automatically.

If I don't know the GM well, then I usually will play if he's highly recommended by people I know and play well with.

In all the above cases, the system doesn't matter that much. A trustworthy GM uses a system he can make work well.

So the only time it really matters is if I am the GM.

In that case, the game needs to work well for the setting I want, and I have to believe that I can understand the system well enough to run it well for people. That could be either a simple system (Flashing Blades, TOON, original D&D), a system I already know really well (AD&D, Champions), or one I'm willing to really study (possibly 3.5e next time I start a game).

My willingness to study it includes willingness to buy any books I need and don't own. Any new system is competing with systems whose books I already own. It has to pass that hurdle. Back when D&D was a three book set with three supplements, that wasn't a big hurdle. Today, it is. [I can't imagine investing in a new version of D&D when I have so many original D&D, BECMI, AD&D, &3.5e books on my shelf.]

Also, a new system has to be better for the setting in some way, than any system I already know well. Otherwise, what's the point of learning it? It should be complicated enough to do what it's supposed to do, but no more.

This means that a musketeers game has to be better in some way than Flashing Blades. A super-hero game has to be better in some way than Champions. A fantasy game has to be better than D&D or Pendragon.

[2D8HP]

What keeps me in a D&D game (since that's all I play now, despite playing dozens other games once upon a time)?

My PC should not be "Locked into Lameness", or in an "Empty Room", or I should still have hope that those conditions won't persist.

But before I keep playing a game I need to start.


Rules alone don't interest me enough to buy a RPG, what gets me to open my wallet is adventures, and, settings. .
What first got me hooked on RPG's was:

Spoiler: A call to adventure!

Show

100 years ago the sorcerer Zenopus built a tower on the low hills overlooking Portown. The tower was close to the sea cliffs west of the town and, appropriately, next door to the graveyard.
Rumor has it that the magician made extensive cellars and tunnels underneath the tower. The town is located on the ruins of a much older city of doubtful history and Zenopus was said to excavate in his cellars in search of ancient treasures.

Fifty years ago, on a cold wintry night, the wizard's tower was suddenly engulfed in green flame. Several of his human servants escaped the holocaust, saying their rnaster had been destroyed by some powerful force he had unleashed in the depths of the tower.
Needless to say the tower stood vacant fora while afterthis, but then the neighbors and the night watchmen comploined that ghostly blue lights appeared in the windows at night, that ghastly screams could be heard emanating from the tower ot all hours, and goblin figures could be seen dancina on the tower roof in the moonlight. Finally the authorities had a catapult rolled through the streets of the town and the tower was battered to rubble. This stopped the hauntings but the townsfolk continue to shun the ruins. The entrance to the old dungeons can be easily located as a flight of broad stone steps leading down into darkness, but the few adventurous souls who hove descended into crypts below the ruin have either reported only empty stone corridors or have failed to return at all.
Other magic-users have moved into the town but the site of the old tower remains abandoned.
Whispered tales are told of fabulous treasure and unspeakable monsters in the underground passages below the hilltop, and the story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of the older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.
Portown is a small but busy city 'linking the caravan routes from the south to the merchscant ships that dare the pirate-infested waters of the Northern Sea. Humans and non-humans from all over the globe meet here.
At he Green Dragon Inn, the players of the game gather their characters for an assault on the fabulous passages beneath the ruined Wizard's tower.



None better for me, even after 38 years!

Yes 1970's D&D was a hodgepodge of "good enough rules now are better than a perfect rules later", that were put together on the fly. It's a mess, but I loved it because it had some great advantages:

1) It was fun.
2) I found other people who played it.
3) I memorized the rules back when I had a young and agile mind.

I still remember a lot of it (which I often remember instead of the game I'm actually trying to play).

Fortunately when I need to GM settings that D&D is inappropriate for I have an aIternative truly multi-setting RPG rules system I made up in the 1980's based on a careful reading of the 1975 Greyhawk supplement for D&D, the 1978 Runequest rules, and the 1981 Call of Cthullu rules, which I now name "Gut check the RPG", and I will share with you:

1) GM describes a scene.
2) Player says an action that their PC attempts.
3) GM decides if the PC has no chance of success, no chance of failure, or a partial chance of success.
4) If a partial chance of success, GM makes up on the spot a percentage chance of success.
5) Player rolls D100 (two 0-9 twenty-siders back then).
6) If the player rolls under the made up number their PC succeeds in attempting the task, if over the PC fails.
7) GM narrates the immediate consequences until it's time to again ask, "what do you do".
8) Repeat.

It seemed to work.

Honestly, these days trying to learn rules other than character creation is a chore for me, and I mostly read RPG's for setting "fluff".

I may already own a RPG with a brilliant rules system that I would love, but I am unlikely to ever find out.

My favorite setting genre's are (in order):
1) Swords and Sorcery
2) Swashbuckling
3) Arthurian
4) Gaslamp Fantasy
5) Planetary Romance
6) Steampunk
7) Raygun Gothic
8) Viking

My least favorite genres are:
1) Modern-day anything
2) Dystopian Near Future
3) Dystopian Far Future

What I like/want:
1) Exploring a fantastic world.
Playing a superpowered PC in a mostly mundane world leaves me cold (I didn't like Villains and Vigilantes, Champions, Cyberpunk, or Vampire).

2) Reasonably quick character creation without giving me options fatigue (GURPS and HERO, and a little bit in early D&D with initial equipment shopping).

3) The fantastic world should not be too surreal or seem like a cruel joke (Paranoia,Toon).

4) Random character creation should not result in widely disparate starting power levels (Runequest, Stormbringer, and sometimes rolling for HP in old D&D).

5) Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Robin Hood, the Seven Samurai, and Sinbad?: Yes!

6) Avengers, James Bond, and the X-Men?: Eh nah.

7) Swashbuckling? Yes!

8) Steampunk/Gaslight Fantasy? Probably.

9) Space Opera? Sometimes.

10) Time Travel/Alternate realities (Sliders)?: I'm intrigued.

11) Dark Future?:
(though I did have some fun playing a few sessions of Shadowrun but I never bought the rules!)

12) Archers, Dragons, Knights, Magic, Pirates, and Swords: Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!, and Yes!

13) Lots of dice rolling!
No I don't want to necessarily know why, I just like the sound, the feel, and most of all the suspense!

14) After waiting decades, I finally want to get to play Pendragon, Dagnabbit (I also want to finally get to play in the Castle Falkenstein setting, but I don't remember what the rules were like)!

So what games have I bought lately, and why did I buy them?


1) 5e Dungeons & Dragons



I've played some and bought a lot of different RPG's over the years, and I've yet to actually play any game as fun as D&D. Unlike the 1970's D&D rules I own many actual other people play 5e, and playing the game is more fun than just owning the game.
I was also told that 5e was "simpler than earlier editions".


2) Labyrinth Lord



Those "earlier editions" that 5e D&D is "simpler than", must be very complex indeed! Compared to the '70's rules I knew, while 5e is more clearly written, and fun, I find it far from "simple".

When an opportunity came up to play "old school" D&D, I was thilled, until I found out that my D&D was too old! The game offered was based on the 1981 Basic set, I had the 1977 Basic Set!

Since I never want to order "online", my FLGS was able to get this "clone" of the '81 rules. I need not have bothered, the differences between the '77 and '81rules (and the '94 rules that I later found at a used bookstore) were minor, good if you don't already have old D&D rules.


3) Flashing Blades



I like the Three Musketeers!
And the adventures are great!






4) Lamentations of the Flame Princess


Very close to old D&D, I bought it to match the "Red and Pleasant Land" adventure.




5) Dungeon World


I had hoped to play a "D&D" like game with other people, but with simpler rules, so yes it was rules not setting for a change.


6) Warbirds

I was intrigued by the setting and I thought I had an opportunity to actually get to play it (I was wrong).


7) 7th Sea


Frankly I'm intimidated by the rules, but what a setting it has!
Just wonderful.


8) FATE

Many recommended the rules, and I thought I'd get an opportunity to play the game (I was wrong)


9) Space 1889

I actually owned the '80's version, loved the setting and when I saw a new version out I picked it up.


If someone prints a new version of Castle Falkenstein or Pendragon I want them now!

[Sariel Vailo]

i dont care the game type its the people

[Cluedrew]

The People.

Seriously, you cannot make a system that will still be good if it is not being played by people I want to play with. On the other hand, my group (or some group I have a particular reason to join) is playing a system I am so-so on, I will play it anyways because I would like to play with them.

So for new systems, if someone I play with (or am friends with) pitched it to me I probably would. So at the scale you are taking about it could also be described as the community.

[VincentTakeda]

How much does the artwork and graphical design help out?Thanks for your time!

I feel bad that a lot of surveys ask this question but get the opposite answer to what they're looking for due to a lack of context...
My answer on the surveys is that art is usually very important to me when it comes to buying a new book... But thats only because I find kitschy new attempts at rules to be useless... Since I know I'm not going to use a new set of rules that much, they'd better be pretty.
Truth be told though I'd way rather have a simple black and white book where the system's rules felt like thought was put into them and their consequences.

[2D8HP]

People matter, but not enough to keep playing if I really don't like the setting.

After some glorious years playing D&D in the very late 1970's and the early 80's, the tables in my area (over my objections) switched to othet RPG's. Many were almost as fun as D&D, but by the early 1990's the only open tables were for Champions, Cyberpunk and Vampire, and the settings of those games were too close to real life for me to bother playing, and I left gaming for decades.

[oxybe]

People definitely matter to me, it's the one biggest reason why reason I kept playing Pathfinder and it's adventure paths for so long: I liked hanging out with my friends.

But I can only stomach so much before enough is enough, which is why I stopped playing with them: paizo's adventure paths are just not a style of play I like and the system itself doesn't help much.