Breaking up is hard to do

[Sound of Azure]

(Semi-rambling musings begin here )

So I've gone and done it. For the first time ever, I've left a D&D game that hadn't petered out or disintegrated due to another player. And... I have the distinct impression it's mainly my fault.

The last game was two weeks ago. It didn't really end on a great note, and I was honestly glad to get out of there at the time. We talked by phone later in the week, clearing things up somewhat. I stil felt uneasy though. Last week, I had another engagement to take care off, so I couldn't make it to the session. After thinking some more, a couple of days ago I quit the game.

It feels strange, you know? It's not something I've ever done before. The game wasn't a bad game. There are many avenues of engagement for the PCs and opportunities for advancement. The DM is fairly experienced, and somebody I'd like to be friends with eventually. But we clash (in the game sense) for a number of reasons.

1) My character was a big departure from my usual characters (I tend to play heroic PCs), and was largely an experiment to see what I could do with an evil PC. I'm probably just coddled or something, but I've never been revolted by my own PC, or that of my fellow PCs before. Anti-hero is one thing, but this seemed to be something else.

2) Being in a largely evil-style group, I didn't rely on my comrades very much nor did I aid them. Yet... the scenarios hinged on us working together like a conventional D&D group. Didn't gel for me mostly. It seemed counter-intuitive to have such a group where the DM is trying to promote team-work and co-operation.

3) High magic. I can do normal D&D (though I prefer lower magic), but this setting was really really magical. Magic corner stores, and magic solves all your problems (no need for city guards, just have mages!).

4) I felt nerfed most of the time. This is just a perception, though... possibly related to my other dissatisfactions. The party wizard had the "Guild Wizard" PrCl from Complete Arcane (but could change spells at will, except in combat...no need for empty slots), the Rogue could Hide in Plain Sight. Meanwhile, I had to use a magic item to disguise my appearance all the time, I burnt inside holy areas, and had a lot of personal visitations from my goddess to enforce what I had to do. Finally, despite obfuscating magic most major NPCs knew I was evil.

5) It felt arbitrary most of the time. This was only a small problem, and may show that I need to loosen up about the rules a lot more. This DM loved to come up with things on the fly (something I applaud), but tended to ignore actual rules in place for such effects. The DM has the final say in things of course, but I ended up feeling without a foundation to base my decisions on.

My suggestions for an "official" house rules page or booklet was met with derision unfortunately, which left me feeling really bitter and resentful. In hindsight, that's likely a silly way to feel (it's just a game, and I should trust the DM). Still, I felt it would only help the game for all the players to be on board with what is different from the conventional rules. Doubly important with 2 newbie players, IMO.


That... was more rant-ish than I intended. :\

All in all though, I thought it was better to get out since the game was not suiting what I like in RPGs. It was otherwise interesting as I said above, just not for me. I also didn't feel it was my right to ask the DM to change what he is doing, since the other 3 players were fine (or said they were). Nonetheless, I feel terrible about it. I feel as if I have insulted this guy's DMing style. Its clear that it contains the things he enjoys most, and I've just walked away from that.

(sigh) Anyhow, thanks for listening. I'll try to post something more upbeat later.

 

[Teflon Billy]

I don't really see much of an issue here. You prefer to play unambiguously heroic characters in a setting that uses the rules pretty much as they appear in the book (or, at least in a book).

The DM in question prefers a darker shade of game, and isn't above handwaving rules stuff if it moves things along.

To quote Alan Thicke, "It takes diff'rent strokes to move the world".

 

[Hussar]

Having recently done the same thing, I know what you're saying. The funny thing is, I played with the DM for a year and a half in his homebrew before that campaign petered out. He then switched to Shackled City and began running it.

I would like to say that he is a great DM and I learned loads.

However, it was the pacing that got me. In his homebrew camp, it was a high rp game, so advancement wasn't really an issue, although I was a tad on the grumpy side that after a year and a half of weekly play, we had advanced to 4th level. In SC, we played for sixteen sessions, finished off Life's a Bazaar and advanced from 2nd to 3rd. At this point I quit the campaign.

I wanted a much more straight up kill stuff and take their treasure sort of game. I wasn't meshing with some of the other players and the DM was not on board with my attitude towards the game - he wanted to continue it as high rp. In the end, I decided that it was just better to part company in a friendly way.

But, yeah, it does feel REALLY weird to be the one to bow out of a game, particularly a good one. The game was very well done, just, well, not to my taste.

On a side note, I think it was a combination of the DM's expectations and one or two other players around the table that just sucked all the joy out of the game for me. Rather than be the squeaky wheel, I bowed out.

Sigh.

 

[MadMaxim]

I agree with you, Sound of Azure. It always sucks to leave a group where there's still a minimal chance that it could turn out to be great fun, but where a couple of bad sessions sets it all back. I've tried it a few times and then it was usually because I didn't mesh well with the DM (one was way too "making things up on the fly and ignoring pretty much every rule in the book", and the other just had trouble getting his rules knowledge straight and his irritating girlfriend was in the game as well which didn't make it any better).

But you just have to quit when it stops being fun for you across an extended period of time (we all have a couple of bad sessions once in a while).

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I've done this quite a few times over the years; it's never seemed that hard to me.

I go into every game with the idea that it has to compete with a) all the other tabletop RPGs I could be playing, b) all the other board/card/minis games I could be playing, c) all the electronic games I could be playing and d) all the books I could be playing.

In the limited amount of time I have for that kind of entertainment, why would I settle for a game that isn't fun, or even one that's simply 'OK?' :\

 

[taliesin15]

I too can understand this--usually I don't wait very long if the tone feels kind of weird the first time. One time I wanted to play an Assasin in 1.0 AD&D--it was odd, they didn't mind me playing with them, but whenever I tried Neutral Evil things, the rest of the group blanched. Whatever. But this sounds different, like you feel cheated almost because of all the time you put into it, plus all the elements of not gelling because of the campaign style. Sounds like you did the right thing.

 

[Odhanan]

Seems like playstyles not matching, mostly. Plus, I understand these people were not really "friends" per se but more like gaming buddies than anything else. In the end I don't think you share the responsability of the game not working with everyone around the table really.

If I may initiate a small thread highjack, your #3-High Magic makes me think of all the discussions we've had and still have time and time again about low vs. high magic. I honestly don't remember the last time someone was really complaining about low-magic and uber-raving about high magic settings. It seems to me that there are more people complaining about high magic than people complaining about low magic. Far from making low magic settings more appealing to me (and they already are in some specific circumstances), it seems to point out, to me at least, that the problem is the suspension of disbelief - basically, people who want low magic need more parallels with "real world situations and circumstances" to be able to relate to the game and immerse themselves in it.

 

[pawsplay]

( My suggestions for an "official" house rules page or booklet was met with derision unfortunately, which left me feeling really bitter and resentful. In hindsight, that's likely a silly way to feel (it's just a game, and I should trust the DM). Still, I felt it would only help the game for all the players to be on board with what is different from the conventional rules. Doubly important with 2 newbie players, IMO.

Time for relationship therapy! You have every right to feel upset your suggestion was belittled. Further, if you trust the DM, you should be able to clearly communicate your expectations, and a house rule booklet is a good way of codifying those expectations. However, if the DM feels it's too much effort, or too confinding, to have a set of formal house rules, you may have differences in style that themselves need addressing.

 

[Chimera]

Been through a fair number of groups over the last six years. I have higher than the base normal expectations of what I want out of a game / game group and have learned that I don't need to continually compromise myself by settling for less.

Sure, that means a lot of moving on, less actual play, but I've reached that point inside where I think that having no game is better than sticking with a crappy one just to play.

Take my own game, for example, which I just ended. Below is the e-mail which I sent to the players;

+++
I have decided to end the game. There are a number of reasons, but these two are the primary ones, either of which alone would be enough at this point;

1> Non-participation. It seems like I had four or five bodies at the table, but at any given time, there were only about 1.5 active participants. Who those 1.5 were varied from time to time, but there was just too much of "a bunch of guys sitting around staring at each other, waiting for *someone else* to do something." I find this difficult enough when I am a fellow player. I have found that I simply cannot tolerate it as a GM. I tried. Can't do it.

2> I was trying to run a particular kind of game and it became crystal clear that this group does not have any desire to play that kind of game. Thus, I'd been beating my head against the wall, punishing myself and working harder to try to get 'buy in', when my players just weren't interested and weren't open enough to admit it.
+++

Someday I'll find that intelligent, actively participating group. The one where we can play investigative game, whether D&D or CoC. Where we can play difficult plots and where everyone at the table (or at least a strong majority) is actively into the game.


So what does this mean for Sound of Azure? It means that you're not alone in experiencing this sort of thing. It happens. Accept it and move on to another group. Keep looking for people who will play what you want to play.

 

[Mitchbones]

Azure: I may be wrong, but didn't you make a topic a few months ago about joining a new group that you thought might fall apart from arguing? Is this the same one? (I may have you mixed up with osmeone else :O)