Evidence-based psychotherapeutic methods compete with each other, while meta-analysis have shown that variability due to different methods related to outcome is remarkably low. In this qualitative study six former patients were interviewed about experiences of method and technique in Affect-focused therapy, with a slight overweight towards unsatisfactory experiences. Responses were analysed and categorised in emergent themes. Methodological focus on affect showed to be a much appreciated, as well as insufficient, element. Alongside positive experiences or summaries of therapy, methodological frames were felt to be at times restrictive, even invalidating, as far as not allowing focus on what was felt to be the more predominant need. These needs were varied and individual; e.g. more/less of undetermined space free of preconceptions, more/less focus on affect, more direction forward, or more space for existentially oriented aspects. Results found good support in previous research except for a strong validation of therapists, even when aspects of therapy had been severely problematic. Experiences of applied method differed extremely among participants. The study highlighted lack of relation between method and outcome, and that positive regard of therapy and alliance were not synonymous with good outcome. Prominent themes were quality of methodological focus on affect and of therapeutic relationship, basic humanistic values, and individual factors of variance. Future research was suggested to focus on integration of methods, on therapists’ common factors, as well as on issues of power in the therapeutic relationship.