I disagree with a statement by Josh

[skydragonknight]

Nope.  Again your issue is that you are not even trying to understand.  This is extremely clear cut.  I am literally saying "if you have more fun, you will have more fun." And you are saying "shut up, you don't know that."

So here is the thought exercise.  Assume I am correct and try to understand what I am saying.

Well yes, if everyone at a gaming table has tried every system and is at least passingly familiar with each of them, then they would choose the game (or one of the games) they enjoy the most. But if the group only has two or three games in which they share familiarity, most of the time it would be those games they would play, because there is a time expense in teaching a new system.

Also "play a better game" is a nice theory, but practically speaking those in the group who run the games are the ones who decide what game is played and the real pool of games would be only the ones they are familiar with. And they're probably already running the game that they enjoy the most. Really, the only guaranteed way to play a better game would be to run it, even if you'd rather be in the player's seat.

[InnaBinder]

So, the actual point.  You say "I have had fun, because of the people I play with."  So basically, no matter what you played, you would have fun.  So why not play a good game?  First off you will have more fun, and secondly you will have more kinds of fun.  Thirdly you will do less things that irritate you.  It's simple math when you break it down.

And what happens when the game is switched to one that's "better" by the standards you put forward, and the amount of fun at the table decreases?  I've seen it happen.  Please don't say something about "statistical outliers" or similar, either.

So let me get this straight:

What if the group played a game they liked, and they had less fun?

A: They wouldn't
B: One or more people in the group are socially dysfunctional.

I never said "played a game they liked, and had less fun."  That was you, apparently (by the above quotes) equating "a game that's better by the standards you put forward" with "a game they liked."  I said "played a better game by your standards, and had less fun."  You (the BGers, and Josh in particular), have said more than once that it's possible to apply objective analysis to RPGs to determine which ones are 'good' and which ones are 'bad' - or at least, 'less good'.  Are we simply to dismiss out of hand those folks who have a good time playing Rifts and hate every minute of playing Burning Wheel, or a game that fills the niche of Rifts (by the BGers standards) better?

[Prime32]

There are reasons to like or dislike a game beyond the game itself. One of the most visible around D&D-related communities is the number of people who refuse to play Pathfinder because the designers were jerks during playtesting. Pathfinder isn't exactly flawless but there are worse games out there. The same thing can be seen with AD&D grognards who refuse to play WotC products.

It's possible that someone could have had a bad experience with one game which reduces their enjoyment of it. Just telling them "it's better" will not and cannot change that.

As an example, in this thread I recommended Mutants & Masterminds 2e to a Big Eyes Small Mouth d20 player, since I believe that M&M does more or less the same things as BESM (anime-style point-based d20) but better. However...

Heavily depends on your definition of "smoother". I got the BESM rules after a couple of hours. I'm still trying to get the basic rules of M&M 2e. The massive amount of material you need to learn to get started with anything in mutants and masterminds is a massive turn off compared to other systems, even if it's as balanced as people claim (cough magic power cough).

If I were running a game with oslecamo I would rather use Vampire: The Masquerade then M&M, even though it meets none of the criteria, because if he cannot play M&M then his enjoyment will be zero regardless of how good or bad the system may be.

[BG_Josh]

Nope.  Again your issue is that you are not even trying to understand.  This is extremely clear cut.  I am literally saying "if you have more fun, you will have more fun." And you are saying "shut up, you don't know that."

So here is the thought exercise.  Assume I am correct and try to understand what I am saying.

Well yes, if everyone at a gaming table has tried every system and is at least passingly familiar with each of them, then they would choose the game (or one of the games) they enjoy the most. But if the group only has two or three games in which they share familiarity, most of the time it would be those games they would play, because there is a time expense in teaching a new system.

Also "play a better game" is a nice theory, but practically speaking those in the group who run the games are the ones who decide what game is played and the real pool of games would be only the ones they are familiar with. And they're probably already running the game that they enjoy the most. Really, the only guaranteed way to play a better game would be to run it, even if you'd rather be in the player's seat.

OK, so this is a pretty common type of response that I see all the time.  First off, the amount of time to teach a new system is miniscule compared to even just the time that better systems will save you in the long run.  Of the "good" systems the most time consuming to learn are without question 3rd and 4th DnD.  I can teach danger patrol or apocalypse world in 15 minutes or less.  Mouseguard or misspent youth in under an hour.

And yes, if you want to have more fun, you may need to step up.  But if you are content and having fun playing, you have no impulse to step up.  So don't.  (It is my experience that this is simply untrue.  something that gets proven over and over again.) 

Also, if it is the game they enjoy the most, and they have tried a range of games, they are running a good game by now.  (so in other words, they have not, in fact, tried other games.)

I never said "played a game they liked, and had less fun."  That was you, apparently (by the above quotes) equating "a game that's better by the standards you put forward" with "a game they liked."  I said "played a better game by your standards, and had less fun."  You (the BGers, and Josh in particular), have said more than once that it's possible to apply objective analysis to RPGs to determine which ones are 'good' and which ones are 'bad' - or at least, 'less good'.  Are we simply to dismiss out of hand those folks who have a good time playing Rifts and hate every minute of playing Burning Wheel, or a game that fills the niche of Rifts (by the BGers standards) better?

You did.  It may not be what you meant.

Go back to the original post and rephrase the question and i will answer that.

Fun is irrelevant to the issue.  Hanging out with friends is fun.  We want to know if the game gives you payouts from play and does not have too many turnoffs.

If you don't want to play a Burning Wheel type game you wont like it.  But if you want to play a crunchy, gritty, character driven game, it is the best option.  If you want drama and politics it is better at that than WoD.

If you want Over the top Action, don't play BW. 

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise. 

[BG_Josh]

It's possible that someone could have had a bad experience with one game which reduces their enjoyment of it. Just telling them "it's better" will not and cannot change that.

Again, I see this all the time.  This is a big issue it is a negative stain on people like sexism or racism.  It is an argument ender, one way or the other.  So when this comes up just agree that they are illogically prejudiced and move on. 

Exposing the situation is the best thing you can do. 

[InnaBinder]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

[BG_Josh]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

[veekie]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.

[ImperatorK]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

You know, there's always something as simple and subjective as preference. For example I prefer D&D/PF, although there obviously are better systems. It's just what I like.

[InnaBinder]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.

Hmm.  One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here.  How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have?  How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?

[Nanshork]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.

Hmm.  One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here.  How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have?  How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?

This is why I attempted to debate him earlier.

[BG_Josh]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.

You mean a group that does not want to play a BW style game?  That's actually the majority of people.  I have never even intimated otherwise.

[BG_Josh]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

You know, there's always something as simple and subjective as preference. For example I prefer D&D/PF, although there obviously are better systems. It's just what I like.

Right.  You are determined that the "best" game you can play is DnD/PF so thus it is.  Also correct.

[BG_Josh]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.

Hmm.  One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here.  How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have?  How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?

You're just mistaken.  Somewhere along the line you got lost.  but for a number of reasons you are confronting rather than questioning.

[BG_Josh]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.

Hmm.  One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here.  How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have?  How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?

This is why I attempted to debate him earlier.

If you want to debate me, start a thread and give your thesis you think opposes mine.

[Nanshork]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.

Hmm.  One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here.  How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have?  How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?

This is why I attempted to debate him earlier.

If you want to debate me, start a thread and give your thesis you think opposes mine.

Why?  Every time I have ever tried to debate you, it has ended with you telling me that I just don't understand what you're saying.  There is no point in it at all.

Edit: I no longer see a point in attempting to convince you of what I talk about.  I find your posts to be as inflammatory as Sunic's in their own way, and am making use of the board's ignore function.  I will no longer contribute to this thread.

[ImperatorK]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

You know, there's always something as simple and subjective as preference. For example I prefer D&D/PF, although there obviously are better systems. It's just what I like.

Right.  You are determined that the "best" game you can play is DnD/PF so thus it is.  Also correct.

So you are wrong. Good to know.

You're just mistaken.  Somewhere along the line you got lost.  but for a number of reasons you are confronting rather than questioning.

Again the "You're too stupid to understand" attitude. Please stop.

[InnaBinder]

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise.

What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche.  I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.

It is categorically impossible for that to happen.  So when do you think that happened?  Or is this theoretical?

Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.

Hmm.  One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here.  How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have?  How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?

You're just mistaken.  Somewhere along the line you got lost.  but for a number of reasons you are confronting rather than questioning.

Then explain to me, clearly, why am wrong, and why veekie is wrong, by having experiences that contradicted your experience.  Simply stating I'm wrong is not sufficient; dismissing my experience as an outlier is not sufficient.  Explain, don't dismiss.  Otherwise, your responses don't present as contributing anything meaningful to the conversation.

[BG_Josh]

Why?  Every time I have ever tried to debate you, it has ended with you telling me that I just don't understand what you're saying.  There is no point in it at all.

Edit: I no longer see a point in attempting to convince you of what I talk about.  I find your posts to be as inflammatory as Sunic's in their own way, and am making use of the board's ignore function.  I will no longer contribute to this thread.

Right.  So to be clear then.  When I do not immediately agree with you you make excuses and leave.  Also, as a point of information: you have never attempted a debate,  you just disagreed with me.  To debate you need to make a claim that is "falsifiable".  Like "I believe it is impossible to objectively evaluate games"  And then you would make statements that supported that thesis.

you are so off base that it is like you are in a pie eating contest and you declare yourself the winner after eating a box of donuts.

[BG_Josh]

So you are wrong. Good to know.

What? oh no, you sure pulled one over on me Huck Finn.  Painting a fence is no fun at all.

Seriously? 

I admit to being a fan of the Socratic method. (look it up)