The only truth is that a good group can elevate even the worse system but a bad group will ruin even the best system. I can play a shitty system but I cannot play with shitty people.

>>96041247 (OP)
That's about 75% true. There are some systems that are just so obtuse or poorly made that it's not worth the time it takes to unravel them, but at least if you have a good group you'll collectively agree to stop playing and pick something better made instead.

>>96041287
That's not the point. If a good group is playing a system you don't fancy, you will still have more fun playing with them than if a bad group is playing a system you love.

>>96041378
Generally. Sometimes it isn't, but it's a good general rule to follow.

>>96041247 (OP)
if you have a good group, they wouldn't play a shitty system

There is also truth to the fact that a product a company expects money for should have standards for quality and be scrutinized for any errors, flaws, or other aspects that fail to meet said standards.
A person or their group making excuses for a company's failure to make a quality product doesn't justify the company's failure to make a quality product.

>>96041287
What's the point of this post?

>>96041557
What's the point of yours?

>>96041247 (OP)
What a worthless observation. Not playing any game at all is fun with people you like, and almost anything is horrible with people you hate.

>>96041247 (OP)
the truth has been laid out here >>96037892

>>96041247 (OP)
OP was not a faggot for once. Too bad that leaves nothing to discuss here.

>>96041247 (OP)
different systems are played by different players though.
a group that forms to play Maid RPG is going to be very different from a group that forms to play 5e, and neither fully resembles a Mage: The Ascension table, a Shadowrun crew, or the GURPS group.

>>96041728
I had played gurps, mage, D&D and shadowrun all with the same group, back in college. It's all about the attitude and interest you all bring to the table. Mostly, it's about one person at the table getting excited about something new they discovered, and whether or not they can convince others to get excited about it, too.

Try to play a game of FATAL with your best friends.

At best, you will have a good time laughing at the awful fucking rules and how impossible it is to play the game. It is a shitty system that cannot be played, not even with the best people.

What if you just played good games with good people, instead of playing bad games or playing with bad people?
Why make excuses for corporations who don't care about the quality of their games they ask to be paid for?

>>96041541
You can play bad independent games (including your own costume system) too and have more fun with the right people than a great curated game with bad players.

>>96041378
I'm still not having fun either way, and am having less fun than using no system at all, so how is that a defense? 'Well at least noone's shooting you in the nuts with a nail gun' is not a defense of some cunt scraping their nails on a chalkboard.

>>96041247 (OP)
This is how it is for pretty much everything. Hobbies, jobs, everything that requires you interact with another person. Good people can make even the shittiest things at least bearable.

>>96041846
I guess I'm just missing the point of bringing up bad players.
It should be obvious to not play with bad players.

>>96041247 (OP)
This is true. I'd rather play in a shitty system with my buddies than a "good" system with people I can't stand.
But even the best of buds can't alleviate the sheer frustration of playing in a shitty system forever. Either I eventually get my buds to leave their comfort zone and try a new system, or I fucking crashout.
Thank fuck I did manage to get three of my players to try out something that wasn't a D&D clone or a PbtA/FitD game. God bless these guys. I don't know what I'd do if that didn't happen.

>>96042745
You'll be amazed how many people stuck with bad groups just because they want to play a particular game so badly.

>>96043298
No, people make all sorts of bad decisions all the time. Nothing remotely amazing about that.

>>96041247 (OP)
You must have misplaced, this isn't LiveJournal.

>>96041247 (OP)
>The only truth is that a good group can elevate even the worse system
False.
A good group will realise they are dealing with sheet system and drop it. Often in the middle of the session.

>>96041378
Answer me this:
If the group knows the game is shit, why are they still playing it? What magic sunk-cost fallacy is at play here to stick to a system that turns your fun into less fun due to playing a bad game, or even simply one that isn't up to group's liking?

>>96043298
And?

That doesn't change the truth of >>96041541, which has been deflected, and >>96041806 which has been outright ignored.
These questions aren't rhetorical. Why are there people like OP defending shitty production and implying the only other option is to play with shitty people?

I'm sure >>96047302 won't get a straight answer either.

>>96047473
Go make your own thread if you want to complain what a shitty company Chaosium or GW or Paizo or WotC is. It's off topic here.

I've played dnd 5e and had a lot of fun until combat starts, then I get bored to tears until it ends (which takes forever), so I think a bad system is not great

>>96041247 (OP)
This is why you should strive to play good systems that fit your group's dynamic so you can all enjoy maximum fun.

>>96047302
>If the group knows the game is shit,
Maybe you don't like the system but the rest do and / or maybe you can see the flaws but aren't really a deal breaker.
Hell, I play CoC despise it's flaws, because the other aspects work well enough for me.

>>96048466

You're missing the other half, no matter if you change systems, if the group is bad you'll have a bad time regardless.

>>96047473
The point is that it's easier to deal with a shitty system than with a shitty group, not that you should excuse "shitty systems" just that good systems don't guarantee good gameplay experience.

>>96048532
It's also easier to replace a shitty system than a shitty group, unless your group is too shitty to be willing to try anything new. But then you need to replace the group anyway, so may as well replace the game while you're at it.

>>96048532
you are not understanding what I said, when I play dnd 5e I have a lot of fun with the group, until they system itself forces us to pay attention to it, then it is significantly less fun. The system is actively dragging down the fun Im having

>>96048532
This is such a nonpoint. Okay, so?

>>96048532
And it's easier to play good games with good people than it is for either one of those things to be bad.
So why was it brought up?

>>96048062
So, what is the topic here?

>>96048863
That a good group can compensate for a shitty system but a good system can't compensate for a bad group.

>>96049888
And a good group can enjoy a good game more than a bad game.

>>96049888
Maybe they can, but they shouldn't because they can just stop playing the bad game and play a good one instead. Meanwhile there are plenty of reasons to keep playing with bad groups.