In No RPG Better than Bad or Mediocre RPG?

[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.

[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.

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.