Combating My Own Boredom as a Player

[Retreater]

I'll admit it: I'm a bad player. Too many years of being a "Forever GM" has made me accustomed to playing multiple characters, controlling the pace of the game, shaping the story when necessary, adding complications, etc. As a player, I don't have enough to do, and my interest wanes. Also, we're playing online, so it's even more of a challenge to focus on the game.

As an example (and not criticizing the GM or system), I've been playing the same character in a weekly PF2 campaign for a year. We've just reached 6th level in an adventure path that has limited variety in the setting (we're stuck on a jungle island). I picked a character class that I thought would have a lot of variety in what he can do, but for a year of weekly play, every combat seems about the same. Move up, mark my target, attack. If I don't have to mark or move, I can raise my shield and/or take a second attack. Even if PF2 has a lot of varied things a player can do, it's not enough to interest me for 40+ sessions while I'm staring down just as many more to get to the end of the campaign.

Do other "Forever GMs" have this issue?
How do I change this?

 

[Reynard]

I am also kind of a bad player, since I much prefer to GM. Too often, I catch myself backseat GMing, especially about rules and stuff. It's hard.

 

[Ath'kethin]

It's been 10 or so years since I was anything but a GM, but the last time I was, my character teamed up with and developed strategies with some of the other characters in the group.

Now, this was a 5th Edition Adventurer's League game, so there were sometimes a LOT of players, but there were three of us playing Rogues and we each had a different subclass; I was a Thief, and the other two were an Assassin and an Arcane Trickster. We developed strategioes that took advantage of our respective specialties, and often involved another player who had a paladin of some stripe.

Thinking asbout it, I guess that was an example of me still trying to manage the game withiout actually running it. Oops.

 

[aco175]

I have not been a player since 3e days, except for going to a convention. The 4 hour games are short enough to not lose focus, even if AL games are not that interesting.

 

[payn]

I'll admit it: I'm a bad player. Too many years of being a "Forever GM" has made me accustomed to playing multiple characters, controlling the pace of the game, shaping the story when necessary, adding complications, etc. As a player, I don't have enough to do, and my interest wanes. Also, we're playing online, so it's even more of a challenge to focus on the game.

As an example (and not criticizing the GM or system), I've been playing the same character in a weekly PF2 campaign for a year. We've just reached 6th level in an adventure path that has limited variety in the setting (we're stuck on a jungle island). I picked a character class that I thought would have a lot of variety in what he can do, but for a year of weekly play, every combat seems about the same. Move up, mark my target, attack. If I don't have to mark or move, I can raise my shield and/or take a second attack. Even if PF2 has a lot of varied things a player can do, it's not enough to interest me for 40+ sessions while I'm staring down just as many more to get to the end of the campaign.

Do other "Forever GMs" have this issue?
How do I change this?

I notice you often frame things in combat. Seems a good deal of your dissatisfaction comes from lack of variety and effectiveness in combat. Im sort of the opposite, I take combat as a given. Its probably going to be a rinse and repeat experience (PF2 is all in on hyper specialization so you will really be rinse and repeat as you have already noticed). Sure, a GM ought to shake things up and make combats interesting, but thats tough to do every single time. I actually look for more outside of combat. I admit im definitely a social > exploration > combat pillar type. So, my advice might not hit home.

Anyways, I'd think of it as an exercise in seeing how others GM. You might pick up some pointers, you might be able to offer some. As you play try and imagine how the GM sees the situation unfolding. Try and make the most of the situation with your GM hat in your back pocket as you play. Dont overstep your role and be a back seat GM, but maybe since you prefer GMing you can be a player from that state of mind.

In the future, you might want to consider a summoner or other type of pet class that will allow you to control multiple characters and give a greater variety in combat.

That's all I got.

 

[TiQuinn]

I'll admit it: I'm a bad player. Too many years of being a "Forever GM" has made me accustomed to playing multiple characters, controlling the pace of the game, shaping the story when necessary, adding complications, etc. As a player, I don't have enough to do, and my interest wanes. Also, we're playing online, so it's even more of a challenge to focus on the game.

As an example (and not criticizing the GM or system), I've been playing the same character in a weekly PF2 campaign for a year. We've just reached 6th level in an adventure path that has limited variety in the setting (we're stuck on a jungle island). I picked a character class that I thought would have a lot of variety in what he can do, but for a year of weekly play, every combat seems about the same. Move up, mark my target, attack. If I don't have to mark or move, I can raise my shield and/or take a second attack. Even if PF2 has a lot of varied things a player can do, it's not enough to interest me for 40+ sessions while I'm staring down just as many more to get to the end of the campaign.

Do other "Forever GMs" have this issue?
How do I change this?

We had a player who would frequently get bored with the characters he was playing and worked with the DM in advance to essentially kill off his PCs from time to time so he could move on to the next one lined up.

 

[payn]

We had a player who would frequently get bored with the characters he was playing and worked with the DM in advance to essentially kill off his PCs from time to time so he could move on to the next one lined up.

I've always been curious about the "my PC must die before I can play another one" idea... Unless these were dramatic story beat deaths for fun?

 

[TiQuinn]

I've always been curious about the "my PC must die before I can play another one" idea... Unless these were dramatic story beat deaths for fun?

One did end up not dying - just kind of wandered off like Zenk in the D&D movie. I think he just liked playing that character a lot and changed his mind. But there was no real story beats to it except that the deaths tended to be over the top. If they were planned, they were planned well. My guess is that he just told the DM, if my character goes down, do not pull any punches - coup d’grace him.

 

[payn]

One did end up not dying - just kind of wandered off like Zenk in the D&D movie. I think he just liked playing that character a lot and changed his mind. But there was no real story beats to it except that the deaths tended to be over the top. If they were planned, they were planned well. My guess is that he just told the DM, if my character goes down, do not pull any punches - coup d’grace him.

For a good long time I had a group that wasnt against PC death, but they wanted every chance to save them. Well, except the old schooler. So, I used hero points for the situations in which folks needed to save their bacon. The old schooler never used them. Dice fall where the dice fall. Worked out for everybody. Id say we would have 4-5 deaths in a campaign that was usually 2 years long (APs). 75% of them the old schooler.

I've had groups before with the player full of ideas and cant play one character longer than 2 sessions. Thats hard for me to handle if im being honest.

 

[Reynard]

I like Adventurer's Guilds or similar in-setting constructs that allow players to easily swap out PCs if they want.