The Secret Truth of Tabletop RPGs

What if I told you that 90% of any RPGs Quality is the players playing the game?

You wouldn't be telling half the board anything they didn't already know. The other half of the board thinks fun is objective and that the game system matters at all, so you'd just be baitposting.

I think it leans heavily more on the Game master than the players.
Or we could just say it depends on the people.

What if I told you that you were wrong? A good group can make any system fun... eventually, if you have the time to spend on it... but a bad system can make an average group cease to be fun? I've played multiple games with the exact same group and let me tell you, some of those systems were so bad that they hurt their campaigns drastically.

That doesn't make the remaining 10% any less important. If you've got a good group, you should still be playing good games that are suited to your needs.

> le system doesn't matter maymay
system doesn't matter for a beer&pretzel one-shot but for a prolonged campaign, the system becomes ever more relevant. you're not a a filthy casual, are you?

I'd say it's more like 60% players/good group, 30% game rules/setting and 10% alcohol/food.

I'd call you a bluepiller and a cuck for good measure. Isn't that what the hip kids do these days?

Why hamstring yourself with the remaining 10%, d20fag? Not that you aren't improving your playerbase as well by limiting yourself to people willing to play something less cancerous than d20.

Then you'd be wrong.

Some games encourage certain behavior systematically. OSR games, for instance, encourage naked greed over all else, because that's the main way you advance. If we can agree that this is true, why can't we also agree that some systems are constructed to encourage bad behavior?

Also: ever notice how all the "system doesn't matter!" People also love to shit on GURPS? If system really doesn't matter, why not play a system that does EVERYTHING?!

tl;dr, you're a fucking moron

What if I told you that 100% of any RPGs Quality is the fun you have playing pretend withyour friends?

Your hypothesis is dumb and only proves how few different groups you must have played in.

Even if we only care about games that the people in the group really enjoy, the proportion is gonna vary wildly from game to game.

I've been in a great game where honestly over 80% of the overall good times and enjoyable ideas flowed from the GM, but I've also been in the exact opposite scenario in a different game with a different group.

You can easily lose a lot of enjoyment with a shitty system, especially if your group has seen better games in its time.

Maybe like 40% GM, 30% players, 30% game system.

I'd agree with that. About a third each, weighted towards the GM, although that can change in systems where narrative authority is distributed rather than centralised.

Once you have a good group, any game can be fun, which means that the emphasis is put squarely on the system.

I know I'll have a good time with my group, but just exactly how much fun will depend a lot on the system.

> game master isn't a player
wew lad

I've played more games than /tg remembers to talk about, user.

The fact that you haven't learned how deep the rabbit hole really tells everyone how autistic you are.

I'd disagree.

The game's fun factor is affected, I've played rough or badly made games that I've had fun with, but all of us at the table had to try and stop for a moment to figure out some shoddy rules.

The quality of the game itself wasn't changed, just how much I enjoyed it.

But... the players of a game aren't actually a quality of the game system, so how can they be 90% of the game system's quality?

You're an idiot trying to argue that the quality of a restaurant's meals is only as good as the people you eat it with.

I think that's debatable, but in the end it's a pointless discussion. What are we supposed to do, just stop discussing the pros and cons of different games because "eh it doesn't matter, it'll be fun with a good group and shit with a bad group?" Why even pay money for rulebooks and come onto Veeky Forums to discuss different games if you're going to have just as much fun playing Cowboys and Indians?

This is true of 90% of all things though.

>The fact that you haven't learned how deep the rabbit hole really tells everyone how autistic you are.
That's the most euphoric fedora-tipping post I've seen in years.

What if I told you the quality of the players is your responsibility as a GM?
Naturally good players are easy. But if you can't engage poor players into role-playing more and invest more into the story, than you have no business calling yourself a 'game MASTER'.

What if I told you my 90% has been consistent over the years and that's why I want the other 10% to be good as well?

What if I told you that after the years I'd want to run something else than schlock medieval fantasy that the most popular systems pidgeonhold themselves to? I remember reading in some D&D 3e book a paragraph that amounted to "Of course you can run a game in stone age or bronze age, just give basic weapons a proper penalty for not being iron/steel", what fucking trite

And what kind of argument is "It's not the majority so it doesn't matter!" anyway

I'd say that you, and anyone who agrees with you, are cancer.

What if I told you, the ''fun'' around the table is just an other exercise for roleplayers, so we can roleplay actual fun and pretend we're all happy, even bluffing our own perception/sense motive skill check?

We're not having fun. Nobody has fun.

We're all dead inside.

...

I would ask who you are and why you're in my house