Gaming Group Troubles

[WHW4]

Personally, I'd take it as a challenge to come up with the most whizbang amazing campaign they ever played, ever.

I couldn't help but see you were running Dawn of Defiance. I've never run nor played through it myself, but I have very rarely heard good things about it. Maybe they just didn't like that particular adventure series?

 

[Bedrockgames]

To the OP: How well do you get along with the other members of the group these days? I am just wondering if there are other tensions or problems at work here (either on your end or their's), as that might be a factor. It seems odd that they excluded you from the pathfinder game in imo (particulalry if you guys were a regular gaming group).

My advice would be to continue to game with these folk, but feel free to look for other players and GMs as well. If they are comfortable gaming without you, there shouldn't be an issue with you seeking out other gamers.

 

[pukunui]

I feel for you. We've all been there. But if these people turned away that fast then are they really worth trying to keep?

I don't know that it was really all that fast. The PF game started back at the beginning of Feb, and I restarted my own campaign at the end of Feb. It's kinda been festering for a while now.

I say use em. Play it nice, ask what they don't like about your game. Ask what he does better. Use this as a chance to take YOUR games to the next level.

I would love to do that, but every time I've asked them in the past what I could do better and so on, I haven't gotten a satisfactory enough response. I posted in that "how often does your group e-mail" thread that my group is terrible at e-mail and it really frustrates me. I regard e-mail as a "slow conversation", just like the OP of that other thread, so I tend to get a little frustrated/offended when my e-mails go ignored. And my players are pretty good at ignoring my e-mails.

Wow I sound like a jerk.

LOL. It's OK. I don't mind.

Personally, I'd take it as a challenge to come up with the most whizbang amazing campaign they ever played, ever.

As above. I'd love to improve my campaign and make it more competitive/attractive, but I don't really know how, and my players won't really tell me.

I couldn't help but see you were running Dawn of Defiance. I've never run nor played through it myself, but I have very rarely heard good things about it. Maybe they just didn't like that particular adventure series?

They enjoyed the first two modules. I'll agree that the third has been a little lackluster so far, but I think things have started to pick up a bit now. My two remaining players have been loving every minute of it so far, though.

To the OP: How well do you get along with the other members of the group these days? I am just wondering if there are other tensions or problems at work here (either on your end or their's), as that might be a factor.

I have been gaming with player #1 on an almost weekly basis for about 5 years now. In that time, we've done the occasional socializing outside of the game (a birthday party here, a kayaking excursion there), and he used to be good about e-mailing and even chatting on MSN messenger and stuff, but mostly it's been a purely RPG-focused relationship and he's come to hate electronic communication, so we've kind of drifted apart in the past six months or so. Plus, he's become increasingly cynical and bitter, although I think a lot of it has to do with his work situation rather than my campaign.

Player #2 and I also occasionally get together for birthday parties or whatever, but it is mostly an RPG relationship. We first met on the forums when I was looking to do a D&D minis trade. Since then, we've met up for lunch occasionally, and he's guest starred in a few of my older campaigns. He's always wanted me to play in his own PF game but it's never worked out. Player #1 was the previous Star Wars GM for our group, and he got Player #2 in as a regular player, so when I took over as GM, he kept playing regularly. He'd like to keep playing with me still, and he doesn't want to make a choice between the two. But I don't know how well that will work out.

Player #3 is a purely RPG relationship. I've invited him to my birthday parties and stuff, but he's never come. I only ever see him at the gaming table. And he is also a fairly intermittent player. He is big into outdoor adventure stuff and so he's always galavanting around the country or heading over to Australia or up to the Pacific Islands to go on hiking trips or diving trips or whatever. So he misses sessions quite a bit already actually.

It seems odd that they excluded you from the pathfinder game in imo (particulalry if you guys were a regular gaming group).

It's not odd that they didn't invite me because they all know that I'm not interested in playing Pathfinder. Again, I'm not upset that I got "excluded". I'm upset that I wasn't kept in the loop.

My advice would be to continue to game with these folk, but feel free to look for other players and GMs as well. If they are comfortable gaming without you, there shouldn't be an issue with you seeking out other gamers.

I think what I'm going to do is stick with my two remaining "loyal" players and forget about everyone else. I might eventually start to look for new players. Or, if the PF game falls through and some of the others want to come back, I'll consider it.

 

[the Jester]

Wait a second. I want to make sure I've got this right.

So you put your game on hiatus, the other dm started up a campaign with a system you're not interested in for the other players, possibly not inviting you because they know you dislike Pathfinder (? I'm guessing here) and then wants to keep running his game on a schedule.

You come back, ask him not to run his game on a regular schedule, then don't run at all when he can't (or chooses not to) come? And then you ask him to not run his game again- killing his game's momentum- so that you can give it another shot.

Then you take it personally when some of the guys prefer his game and are now considering an ultimatum: "If there's a scheduling conflict, play my game or GIT!"

I think you're reacting very poorly here, frankly. No matter how good a friend someone is, if they run I game I don't enjoy I am not going to play it. It doesn't mean I'm not their friend, just that I don't like the game they're running. If there's a better game, perhaps run by another friend, on the same day and time- hell yeah I'm playing that one instead.

One thing you said that particularly struck me:

However, because of the new guy's unwillingness to put off his own game (and, honestly, I can understand that his priorities have shifted so that his own "baby" is more important that mine, but the thing is: he did commit to playing in my campaign first), I still can't get any momentum going.

Behind this statement are two main things that make me frown.

1. "He committed to playing in my campaign first." Like nobody can drop a game that they don't like? What, that means you have a claim on his time?

2. "Because of the new guy's unwillingness to put off his own game... I still can't get any momentum going." Come on! Now we've jumped from "he committed" to playing every other week to he has to play more than that with your game while sacrificing his game? Suddenly he owes you every Friday night?

First of all, this situation isn't him swiping players from you. This is him saying, "Hey, we don't have a game going on while everyone's out of town, so I'll run one myself!" What is he supposed to do, tell the rest of the group, "Sorry, you can't play, you're in punkunui's group, I wouldn't want to create a conflict" and then spend weeks or months gathering up a different group?

Now, the one thing where I feel you do have cause to feel burnt is that they didn't invite you. However, given that we've already established you don't want to play the game in question anyhow, why would they?

I'm sorry to say that I'm with your wife. I think you're feeling personally slighted by this when it isn't about you personally. It sucks, but giving out ultimatums and throwing people out of your campaign aren't going to help any- if anything, they will drive those folks away. In fact, I'd echo the earlier comment that you're being inflexible. Why not try to run on a different day? Why not offer to trade a session instead of just trying to take them?

Why is everything the other guy's fault? I sure would be interested in hearing from him or the players to get their perspectives on this.

I thought the house rules question/reply was interesting too- are you using house rules a lot? Have people in the group been complaining about something?

I would find new players and be ready to drop the old ones if they don't show up for a few sessions, but if I were you I'd also adopt a "quorum plays" attitude- if you have a total of six players, you play if a quorum of x are present (I'd go with three, personally). (Of course, you may need to be ready to modify encounters and such to deal with the lower number of pcs.)

Good luck to you, whatever you decide.

 

[Treebore]

Sounds like your doing all you can do, communicate with the players, salvage those you can, and move on. Find new players when you can.

I also find it interesting that they "enjoy" the other game better. You may want to find out if it is because they think your a lesser DM, or if its just that they have always been more interested in D&D and pathfinder in particular.

I love the Pathfinder material, I have bought way too much of it, from the rule books to almost all of the AP's through Kingmaker, and many, many of the other supplements, but given a choice I wouldn't sit down to play Pathfinder either. But if I had no choice, I would sit down and play it. I would just never DM it.

Sounds like you have a choice, but even so your choice is playing under the GM who came into your game, probably with the specific intent of stealing players from you. Plus what he did is certainly not cool. So I wouldn't play under him even if had the class to invite you in the first place, which he did not. Probably because he is afraid you would get your players back if he did.

So yeah, do what you can and move on.

 

[the Jester]

I posted in that "how often does your group e-mail" thread that my group is terrible at e-mail and it really frustrates me. I regard e-mail as a "slow conversation", just like the OP of that other thread, so I tend to get a little frustrated/offended when my e-mails go ignored. And my players are pretty good at ignoring my e-mails.

But the emails aren't the game. I really think you feel an entitlement to a high level of investment from the players, and not all players will be that invested in a game. No player owes his gm homework. No player owes his gm a discussion about the game (although I certainly like it when there is one).

I think what I'm going to do is stick with my two remaining "loyal" players and forget about everyone else. I might eventually start to look for new players. Or, if the PF game falls through and some of the others want to come back, I'll consider it.

Even though you put quotes around it, the fact that you used the word "loyal" makes it sound like you are indeed taking this very personally.

 

[pukunui]

Wait a second. I want to make sure I've got this right.

No, not entirely.

I put my game on hiatus because everyone, including me, was going away on summer holidays one after the other. It was easier just to put the game on hold until everyone's schedules settled down. At the time, though, the plan was to pick back up with Star Wars and D&D 4e, but over the summer break, the 4e GM decided to can his campaign altogether.

The new guy's PF game wasn't just a "time filler", though. He didn't start it up just because nothing else was going on over the summer.

You come back, ask him not to run his game on a regular schedule, then don't run at all when he can't (or chooses not to) come?

That time I already had a number of other players who weren't going to make it, but the "new guy" called in sick on the day, which meant I really didn't have enough people and I had to cancel at the last moment.

1. "He committed to playing in my campaign first." Like nobody can drop a game that they don't like? What, that means you have a claim on his time?

I actually think he was enjoying my campaign. My issue here is that he agreed to play in my game but then went and started up his own. Naturally his priorities are going to shift to his own game. Am I to take it from your comment that commitment is not something that gamers do or should be expected to do? Committing to something certainly seems to have fallen by the wayside in modern society in general. I think it's sad.

2. "Because of the new guy's unwillingness to put off his own game... I still can't get any momentum going." Come on! Now we've jumped from "he committed" to playing every other week to he has to play more than that with your game while sacrificing his game? Suddenly he owes you every Friday night?

Hell no. I only keep asking him because he keeps saying no. I don't want to take every single Friday away from him. He seemed to misunderstand that as well.

First of all, this situation isn't him swiping players from you. This is him saying, "Hey, we don't have a game going on while everyone's out of town, so I'll run one myself!"

Again, it was not just a case of "let's do something while nothing else is happening". I don't really know what his primary motivations were. I think he probably just wanted to GM again.

if anything, they will drive those folks away.

And at this point, I'm OK with that.

In fact, I'd echo the earlier comment that you're being inflexible.

I think it's hilarious that people think I'm being inflexible in my quest to gain more flexibility.

Why not try to run on a different day?

Do you honestly think I haven't thought of that?

Why is everything the other guy's fault? I sure would be interested in hearing from him or the players to get their perspectives on this.

Good luck. None of them have much of an online presence.

I thought the house rules question/reply was interesting too- are you using house rules a lot? Have people in the group been complaining about something?

Yes and not really. As I said, I have one guy who hates house rules on principle. The rest of them seem willing to work with me on it. I don't think this is really that major an issue, though. Plus, Star Wars Saga Edition needs quite a few house rules in order to make it work in a fair and balanced way. Skill checks vs defense scores, for instance, are particularly broken at low-level.

Good luck to you, whatever you decide.

As I said, I've decided to stick with the two remaining players who are still gung-ho about the campaign and go from there. I'd like to give a two player campaign a shot actually. I've always preferred smaller, more intimate social groups to big ones. However, if it gets awkward or whatever, then we'll start looking for another player or two.

Sounds like your doing all you can do, communicate with the players, salvage those you can, and move on. Find new players when you can.

Thanks.

I also find it interesting that they "enjoy" the other game better. You may want to find out if it is because they think your a lesser DM, or if its just that they have always been more interested in D&D and pathfinder in particular.

I tried. And my questions were either ignored or else I wasn't given anything helpful to work with.

I love the Pathfinder material, I have bought way too much of it, from the rule books to almost all of the AP's through Kingmaker, and many, many of the other supplements, but given a choice I wouldn't sit down to play Pathfinder either. But if I had no choice, I would sit down and play it. I would just never DM it.

Kingmaker is what they're playing. The thing is, all three players in question also play in Player #2's Pathfinder game on Sundays. Player #2 is into Pathfinder in a BIG way. That's his system of choice. SWSE is mine, although it may not be aging that well for me. As I said above, it needs quite a few house rules and "judgment calls" to make it work. To be honest, I may just be souring on d20 altogether. It may be time to try a different RPG system.

But the emails aren't the game. I really think you feel an entitlement to a high level of investment from the players, and not all players will be that invested in a game. No player owes his gm homework. No player owes his gm a discussion about the game (although I certainly like it when there is one).

I don't know that I would go so far as to say that I feel "entitled" to that, but it is something I would very much like to have. And yes, I can acknowledge that some players are casual ones. That's fine. I think it's finally hit me that I need to find some new players who are more like me and are thus more willing to invest time outside of game night on it.

Even though you put quotes around it, the fact that you used the word "loyal" makes it sound like you are indeed taking this very personally.

Yes. I'm not denying that I am taking it personally.

 

[the Jester]

Thanks for clarifying on the scheduling bit.

I think it's finally hit me that I need to find some new players who are more like me and are thus more willing to invest time outside of game night on it.

And this is the crux- you and some members of the group have a difference in playstyle preference. I hope you can find the type of guys you're looking for.

Yes. I'm not denying that I am taking it personally.

Try not to. It won't help anything. I know that's one of those "easier said" things, but still.

 

[pukunui]

Thanks for clarifying on the scheduling bit.

No worries. Sorry if it wasn't that clear from the start.

And this is the crux- you and some members of the group have a difference in playstyle preference. I hope you can find the type of guys you're looking for.

Indeed. I've always kind of known that, but I think I may have been in denial. I believed for a long time that I could teach them how to play my way. But they're all in their 30s and 40s. And actually that reminds me that Player #1 said something during our recent phone conversation about how I shouldn't expect guys in their 30s and 40s to "go back to school" - but that was specifically in reference to my attempts to get them to think more about their characters' backgrounds and personalities. When we started the campaign, I had everyone sit down together and I used an adaptation of the Spirit of the Century RPG's character creation rules. I think they all hated it. But the thing was: I was sick and tired of everyone going off and creating their PC in complete isolation with no thought given to what anyone else was playing. I wanted them to build a "team". It actually kinda worked, even though they hated the process. But anyway ... I think this is where someone points out that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, right?

Try not to. It won't help anything. I know that's one of those "easier said" things, but still.

I really, really don't want to take it personally, and I think that I am doing better today than I was yesterday, but even so ... "not taking it personally" and also "letting go" are two skills in which I am severely deficient. I think I must have been sick the day they taught that stuff, because I honestly have no clue how to let go of emotional stuff. I hang on to it for dear life and I hold grudges even when I don't want to. I can remember "wrongs" that were done to me when I was a kid. I still haven't really forgiven the perpetrators. I'd like to think I have. I mean, it's not like I dwell on that ancient history every day and let it get to me. The point is I haven't forgotten that stuff. It's still there in the back of my head. Anyway ... this is all my problem that I need to deal with. If only the Jedi Order was real. I would love to learn to be calmly in control of myself and my emotions like that.

 

[scourger]

As I said, I've been there. Here's my brief experience. Ten years ago, our group had seven members. Now, we are three. It seems like we had just about every kind of conflict you have described. Three of the seven moved out of town, and we added another who is unreliable about anything. The one friend who still lives here but won't play anything but D&D used to bother me a lot. He probably would show if we played D&D, but there is no longer any real hurry to accommodate him. It was he who really showed me by words & actions that there is no group and no loyalty, only a motley collection of individuals who pursue a group game only as long as it matches their individual desires. We're still friends, by the way; and we may even game together again one day.

So, here is what works for me. I run what excites me and my players. I try other games but I discontinue them if I am not having fun (I still feel a little guilty about it, though). We have a regular weekly game night. My games are designed to run for the players present and to allow others to drop in or out at any time, which takes deliberate choices of game & story styles.

I think you could do the same by continuing your game every other Friday night for those who choose to come play. Running that game in episodes makes it easier to have a fluctuating number of players from session to session. I think it can be done with d20 but Savage Worlds works better for me--and Gamma World works like a charm right now. Don't give any ultimatums about choosing one game or another, especially where the scheduling conflict is avoidable. The effect on friendships (such as they are) is not worth it.

And, if all that doesn't work, then give it up. It sounds liek you have another game to play anyway, so just have fun. Sooner or later, you'll get the chance to run your game again. At that time, you want to have as much good will from the players as possible.

Or take up miniatures like 40K, which is my fall-back.