>no game is better than bad game
So /tg/ what happens when I've only played one game because of this because all the people I know who play were in it and they're all that guy?
Is no game for life my destiny?
You're probably That Guy too.
>>44380423
If you think everyone is That Guy, you are probably the actual That Guy.
If you just go play, make an effort to stick to the same game and keep playing, over time (like a year) people will learn to play and the game will be fun.
>>44380702
I'm going to be gming a dark heresy game. First time. What's your suggestions on being a good gm and to handle asinine requests?
>>44380423
I've tried playing a few times and i quickly realized the hobby isn't for me.
I still like the idea of it, and thinking up interesting builds, but in practice people who play it are to escapist for my liking and just like to do stupid shit for "FUN" with little regard of how an actual person would act .
So while i still like the hobby from an outsider perspective gaming just isn't for me
Am I That Guy if I refuse to GM for my friends because they can't make actual characters? I mean they don't ever get deeper than taking a single concept and running wild with it for lolsorandum (playing a british guy with a horse in a Miami crime drama, and after I got rid of that character, playing a copy of Sloth). Everyone else just can't make anything with an ounce of creativity. "Sniper" (Literally all he did in his spare time was clean his rifle) "Russian" (the player is probably the most boring person IRL: only thing he's interested in is slavshit, literally.)
I have a great time playing with these guys, but GMing their retarded asses is a nightmare.
>>44380941
have a vision for your game and make sure everyone is on board before you even start.
And keep playing, players get better as they learn to act and play the game fluidly and tell a story.
>>44381118
This. First time gming, one guy is goofy but cool and the other does stupid crap. I dont want to be too strict but I don't want to be "in the 41st millenia there is only... Goddamnit Deezus Nutsus, stop teabagging that guardsmen!"
>>44380423
While no game is better than a bad game, a solo game is better than both.
Pick up some gamebooks; pick up some solo modules for your favorite system, or if your favorite system doesn't have any because the 80s are a long way back and everyone stopped publishing them, get a GM emulator and you can run with it.
It's a different experience from playing with a group, but has its own particular kind of fun. Like playing Solitaire versus playing Poker.
>>44380423
>all the people I know who play were in it and they're all that guy?
That means you're that guy.
>>44380423
Buddy, I hate to tell you this, but if you think everyone else in a group is That Guy, you are probably That Guy.
Same way that if you don't think your group has a That Guy, it's probably you.
>>44383111
While this is true from a relative viewpoint, it doesn't mean he's a bad guy, just that he's not meshing with the group.
A lot of That Guys will drift around from group to group until they find a like-minded group that enjoys their depraved dickassery. And sure, you would be their That Guy if you came in to their game and said "Hey, I don't WANT to play a game where we murder-rape the nuns from the orphanage we just burned to the ground", but from an outside perspective, you're still just the only sane guy at a table full of horrible mutants.
>>44380423
You start a game.
It's really not that hard. Most people aren't going to be "That Guys", so you find a couple people who are interested, and you make a game for them. Find either something light enough to appeal to casuals, or find a theme that everyone enjoys, and go with it.
Casual games like this are the seeds that make other gamers.
I will concur that you might be That Guy, but will also point out that there are a couple other options: It's by no means impossible that you joined a party of all That Guys, or, more likely, that the party dynamic and your own didn't click, so neither side was getting what they wanted. A further possibility is that you ran into a group where 1 or 2 That Guys have dominated, and the others follow their lead/were taught by them.
These are also possibilities.
But seriously, I'd spend a little time finding local outlets/petitioning your friends. Most people are at least a little interested in tabletop RPGs. "Oh, D&D? I've heard of that. How do you play? If we had a weekend free, I might be down." is the general attitude of a lot of people, though it helps if you/they are late teens/early twenties. Slightly more open age bracket.
>>44380423
Silly anon. If you think everyone is that guy, then you're actually the only that guy. It's kind of like inverse poker.
>>44380423
>>no game is better than bad game
A myth people tell themselves for comfort. No matter how bad a game may be, there is something to enjoy, however miniscule... unless they're just fucking spergs. Then I could see it being true.
>>44384065
Yeah, no game>bad game is just a meme.
>>44380423
>no game is better than bad game
kek. /tg/ says this for 3 reasons
1. If you still want to keep playing with your group after hearing this, you have realized you are just a whiny bitch that gets miffed at your group once or twice a month for little shit. You man up because you realize you actually have it pretty good.
2. You are actually the problem in your group, and /tg/ telling you to leave is actually making the hobby a healthier place.
3. You are a rare good player, you would be a joy to play with, and getting out of a game with five other players that are literally Hitler is like a funny super model leaving an abusive relationship. Everyone will be trying to get into your group/pants now that you are back on the market and you will be having a better experience soon.
Look closely at this list /tg/ and try to guess which category you fall in the next time you whine about another player being an edgelord, lolsorandumb wild mage or a shitty roleplayer that can't get into character.
>>44384065
To be fair, "No game is better than bad game" can be true quite often.
I've seen shitty players kill a newcomer's interest in gaming because they didn't control their own fucking power trip.
I've seen bad GMs drive off players, or teach them shitty habits that better GMs then had to retrain them out of.
You are right in that many bad games still have fun points, but there are occasional times when it's worth it to say "Fuck it, doing nothing would be better."
>>44383111
Im pretty sure a group is still That Group if they told you they were going to run a normal game and you show up and they are all in furry suits.
>>44384065
>No matter how bad a game may be, there is something to enjoy, however miniscule
Except you aren't comparing a game against "having no fun, at all," you're comparing it against whatever else you could have spent those 4 hours doing, which almost certainly contains a non-zero amount of fun.
No game > bad game is true because no game == more time to do things you actually enjoy.
OP back after a long ass Christmas dinner. Hope y'all are having good holidays.
>>44380702
>>44381394
>>44383111
>>44383815
Basically this: >>44383710
When I say "all my friends are That Guy", I do get that that means I'm the one standing in the way of fun. Like, yeah, games are whatever you want them to be.
But I think the culture of /tg/ is such that people understand that if That Guy is That Guy because he likes roleplaying, doesn't want a hack-n-slash game, and is frustrated with intense railroading and IRL inter-personal politics meddling with in game fun, it's not totally unreasonable for That Guy to be like "I'm not the problem and want a different group, it is frustrating that I can't find one".
>>44384065
>>44384245
So this is basically why I made the thread - I get it's a meme and wanted to encourage some non-meme discussion about this. Because a lot of people (noobs who're unconnected, people from small towns, people who are overly anxious about new people, etc etc) hear it and go "welp i guess i get no game ever". I'm not actually that hopeless, but it's been a long ass time and worldbuilding/thinking "wouldn't that character be cool" isn't satisfying the itch anymore, so I wanted to throw some minor shitpost at the wall to see what I'd get.
>>44381266
I hadn't thought of this, and I'll look into it. Thanks for the advice anon!
(New computer, so no good reaction images atm.. have a cool pic)
>>44384245
I still completely ascribe to no game > bad game on the basis that the worst games I have ever had are unfathomable magnitudes better than some of the games I hear about people thinking of as the norm on /tg/, and they were still only *just* worth my time in hindsight.
That said, your framework is still an excellent motivator and if I had to accept a belief system other than my current one it would have to be a frontrunner. You lay out the possible scenarios excellently.
Not a meme at all IMO. No game really is better than a bad game, because a bad game is just a complete waste of time and often very unenjoyable compared to what else you could have done with time + resources.
If your gaming group is your only group of friends and the same crew you do everything else with, then I can see how a bad game is better than no game because you have no real other options that won't cause drama. But otherwise, and especially for looking for games, no game > bad game by miles.
>>44380423
online exists.
>>44384527
Alright, so I would say this in advice OP: if you literally cannot conceive of a way to find a new group, reforming the group members one by one through Gming them through scenarios that will teach them to appreciate the finer things. It is a long, and extremely difficult road. It took me 2 years and I only had an 80% success rate. Another GM took twice as long to turn his first shitlord into a good player. Finding another group will (usually) only take you a month unless you live in some rural hellscape.
