enjoying a game dispite it's flaws?

[Captain_Bleach]

1190839619[/unixtime]]

1190830702[/unixtime]]
When you feel like you are ready to post something serious, come back here.

I'm pretty sure that you have neither the authority, nor the degree of respect necessary to tell other people to shut up here.

That's the problem. You're taking me seriously.
It was just a how-to guide.

[Crissa]

CB seems to have the gist of what fbmf would say, tho. Cool it, guys. Back to the topic.

-Crissa

[Captain_Bleach]

1190852315[/unixtime]]CB seems to have the gist of what fbmf would say, tho. Cool it, guys. Back to the topic.

-Crissa

Because recognizing others' flaws and ignoring my own is what humans do best!:thumb:

[Count Arioch the 28th]

You know, a game has to be really, really bad before I'll stop enjoying it. I know 3E has serious problems, but it's fun anyway.

[CalibronXXX]

The Count has the right of it.

This is the conclusion I've come too; note that the games listed are meant more as well known representitives for a category than anything else.

Rifts: just trash, use another system.
WoD(old or new): broken in the core mechanics, but that's sort of okay since it was actually designed to suck and make you use the mechanics as little as possible. Okay to use for the type of games it was designed for if you're too busy/lazy to find/make a better system.
D&D: broken but fixable, and still fun if you avoid the worst stuff.
Gurps/HERO: some broken stuff, mostly nothing in the core of the game. Needs lotsa work by the GM to make a playable game. Can be very good if you want to put the effort out. SAME falls roughly into this category too, except there's nothing really inherently broken or even unbalanced about SAME.
Shadowrun(4E): nice and fairly balanced at its core and doesn't take nearly as much work/time for the GM as the above category, but the devil is in the details, need to keep your eye out for broken bits here and there. Great fun from the word go, but house-ruling is reccomended.

[bitnine]

1190911982[/unixtime]]
WoD(old or new): broken in the core mechanics, but that's sort of okay since it was actually designed to suck and make you use the mechanics as little as possible.

I'm not sure that the WoD was an elaborate koan that was designed to enlighten you to the idea that it's okay to half play magical tea party with a ST that isn't a douchebag. I mean, yeah, that's mostly how it turns out, but I just figured it was the result of being incomplete in a lot of places and sort of shitty in others.

In any event, I would tend to think the premise is flawed. Games are things you try to enjoy despite flaws in a system, because it's seriously (hopefully) you and some other people trying to have fun. Game systems are complex and varied beasts that can be defined by which failings they possess in which amounts that you go onto the interwebs and bitch about. The vigorousness with which you pursue one doesn't really have an inverse relationship with the other.

So... My advice would be to both not spout off "Let's not worry about the game system because we can have fun in a game," but also not to walk over to a bunch of people playing Rifts and knock aside their dice while urinating on the game table and shouting, "You sons of bitches are worse at life for possibly enjoying this trash!"

Okay, mebbe you can do that for Rifts, but do try to draw the line somewhere before WoD.

[tzor]

WoD: My thoughts. I'm used to oWoD and then just to the primal duo, Vampire and Werewolf. Even then the whole notion of WW's grand unifed system was trash. I would never think of combining the system; either the players were playing vampires or werewolves. The alternate systems had interesting flavor. Still it's always better for more political roleplaying than for outright kill the enemy style roleplaying that is common in the other systems.

[ckafrica]

Best game I ever played was oWOD Mage. The only time I've ever really enjoyed playing a spellcaster and having a combat machine in a game where never (well almost never) fought anything. Rules were fuzzy as hell but that let our imaginations run wild. But it also only worked because we were not trying to win the game but be part of a story.

Actually possibly my favorite part was when the ST would give out XP for explaining what we thought was happening and coming up with crazy hypotheses about who was in bed with who (figuratively and literally).

[PhoneLobster]

You know, a game has to be really, really bad before I'll stop enjoying it. I know 3E has serious problems, but it's fun anyway.

Unfortunately fun is not an on off switch, its a sliding scale.

You don't just have fun OR NOT. You can have more or less fun.

Every additional bit of bad is a bit less fun.

and...

but also not to walk over to a bunch of people playing Rifts and knock aside their dice while urinating on the game table and shouting, "You sons of bitches are worse at life for possibly enjoying this trash!"

Oh, LOOK, isn't that nice, more shit equating criticism to evil.

[CalibronXXX]

You can be critical without being vulgar and destructive, Phone Lobster. I'm sure you know this, since I've seen you do it on rare occasion.

[Maj]

also not to walk over to a bunch of people playing Rifts and knock aside their dice while urinating on the game table and shouting, "You sons of bitches are worse at life for possibly enjoying this trash!"

Oh, LOOK, isn't that nice, more shit equating criticism to evil.

Bitnine's example isn't criticism - it's being an asshat. If you must do that in order to express criticism, there's a bigger problem that needs to be dealt with.

[PhoneLobster]

Bitnine's example isn't criticism - it's being an asshat.

Exactly my point.

No one has gone further than say "System X sucks, don't use system X".

But for some reason we need to reminded that we need to keep to a middle ground in between blind acceptance and preforming higly profane and imaginary acts of vandalism.

And by that suggestion he frames the critical side of the debate as being objectively pro pissing on stuff.

Though admittedly it may be accidental, I still think it needs an objection and correction.

[Maj]

No one has gone further than say "System X sucks, don't use system X".

I wouldn't call that criticism, either, though.

It may not be as extreme an example of asshattery, but it's not useful in anyway except to polarize people - you'll get the defensive justifiers on one side and the accusatory despisers on the other and absolutely no understanding at all.

[PhoneLobster]

I wouldn't call that criticism, either, though.

Its perfectly reasonable to be broadly critical of stuff.

"What is X like?"
"X is crap"

There, simple conversation, question asked, question answered, and it all happens to be factual and there is a lesson to be learned from it. You don't need to answer every question with a five page essay going into all the details.

But if you NEED to know the additional whys and the details behind that sort of answer, and can't be bothered finding them where I and others have gone over them before, then you can just ask.

This isn't mail correspondence that takes months to receive, clarifications and elaborations can appear almost instantly on demand.

You got the broad opinion and the five page essay is just a link or a flurry of typing away if you feel the need to challenge the broad criticism as somehow baselessly naughty.

[JonSetanta]

zzz

[Prak]

1190931022[/unixtime]]to walk over to a bunch of people playing Rifts and knock aside their dice while urinating on the game table and shouting, "You sons of bitches are worse at life for possibly enjoying this trash!"

Okay, mebbe you can do that for Rifts, but do try to draw the line somewhere before WoD.

Ah yes, the Spider Jerusalem approach.

[JonSetanta]

Fuck I hate that character...

[Captain_Bleach]

Games with shitty rules are like Calvin Ball; it makes no sense, but it is possible to have fun in some weird and demented way.

[Prak]

1191099755[/unixtime]]Games with shitty rules are like Calvin Ball; it makes no sense, but it is possible to have fun in some weird and demented way.

and good luck finding anyone to play with you.

@sigma: I love that character!

[Fwib]

1191061133[/unixtime]]Fuck I hate that character...

1191173908[/unixtime]]@sigma: I love that character!

I rather liked those comics too. Not sure I actually liked SJ, but the comics were good.

[Koumei]

I liked Transmet, too. Thought Spider was pretty cool, personally.

[CalibronXXX]

From what I just read on Wiki, it appears I am no fan of SJ.

[Username17]

Spider Jerusalem is the "Wolverine" of Transmetropolitan. That is, he's the "in-your-face-disrespectful" character. His personality is that he says the wittiest and most disrespectful thing the author can think of.

Now you know why people like and/or hate that character.

-Username17

[CalibronXXX]

Yeah, that's why I took a dislike to him, always putting others down for no reason, perhaps other than to make himself look better. Pointing out peoples' flaws in order to try to help them overcome them is one thing, but the way he seems to do it is just pointlessly destructive.

Plus the whole anti-authority thing, not just anti illegitimate or ineffectual authority, but authority in its entirety.

[Cielingcat]

So he's a teenager?