Dissatisfaction with Your Gaming Group?

[Yair]

So you don't trust you GM to do her job.

Sounds like a problem with the GM.

I would prefer the 'mystery' (and avoid the temptation to engage in 'metagaming') of a game with a trustworthy GM, than having to 'keep the GM honest'.

In short, if you feel the need to have the GM roll openly, why not just play a friggin' computer game that does that for you? You have reduced the GM's role to pure number-crunching monster-creator, and umpire. The realization of all the worst stereotypes of 3e.

I have recently moved to rolling in front of the PCs. I find it adds excitment to their games and mine, the rolls are more "real" and all the players "ooh" my 20's and snicker at my 1's just as I do theirs - it's more fun.
That doesn't mean I don't fudge - I fudge the statistics, and sometimes the rolls too. I'm just upfront about it. All my players are grown-ups that respect me enough to not let the rules get in the way of my rulings - if I say something is so, they trust me it's for the best.
For example in a recent Matrix game I "switched" the results of two dice rolls because that would be more fun. None of the players objected, it was more fun. In another game I mentally "upped" the foe's hit points - which scared the PCs, and allowed for a much more meaningful climax.

As for the 'mystery', I roll behind the screen when I want things mysterious. I usually don't, except for some Will saving throws, NPC Bluff checks, and so on. And since none of the PCs know the stats or designs of their opponents, there is still plenty of mystery around.

It isn't a matter of 'keeping the GM honest', it's a matter of trusting the GM to change or ignore the rules if he feels it's approriate, while keeping it rare enough so when it's done it's dramatic. If you are a slave to the rules, you might as well be playing a computer game.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

I have recently moved to rolling in front of the PCs. I find it adds excitment to their games and mine, the rolls are more "real" and all the players "ooh" my 20's and snicker at my 1's just as I do theirs - it's more fun.

Exactly! There's nothing like the tension you get as five sets of eyes track a bouncing D20 across a table knowing that if it comes up twenty, a PC dies.

 

[Ramien Meltides]

Hey, Akrasia - thanks for the thread hijack. I wholly disagree with you, but as I said before - that's a subject for another thread. THIS thread is about dissatisfaction with gaming groups.

As one person pointed out earlier, if they're friends, everything should be kosher. I agree - but these folks, while nice enough, are not friends. They've consistently been unable or unwilling to meet and do anything outside of the game (and I've invited quite a bit).

To some of the other folks who say I am looking for a pretext to leave the group - perhaps, but I prefer to think of it that I am looking for a pretext to stay. There is a fun quotient present in the game. Perhaps that level of fun isn't as high as I'd like it to be, but as someone else pointed out there are a hell of a lot worse groups out there.

The gripes may seem minor, and in the long run, perhaps they are. However, I can't shake the feeling that I could be doing something more productive with my time - and that feeling comes up when these things I complain about happen in the game. Looking at it this way, there's no realistic way that the things that irritate me are going to stop. So, I think it essentially boils down to whether or not I can "go with the flow" on the things that bug me.

I've made my decision - if the DM chooses not to approve the wizard character at a reasonable level of experience (which would increase my "fun factor"), I'll split with the group as amiably as I can. Otherwise, I'll tough it out.

 

[Ramien Meltides]

Just to make sure there's no misunderstandings, I feel that the biggest two issues with my group are the percieved favoritism (which, as was pointed out earlier, can't be proven and may not actually exist) and the DM's handling us with kid gloves. Taken individually, any of the problems I mentioned are no big deal. All together, though, I just get the feeling of "oy, what a mess."

 

[billd91]

But...the problems follow. First, I think there are some fundamental differences in playing style between myself and the DM. I prefer open rolling, he rolls everything behind the screen. I prefer rolling skill checks myself, he makes them for us. I prefer standard "average" hit points per level, he likes rolling for each level gained. These differences are minor, and if they were the only barriers I faced, I wouldn't complain one bit. <snip>

As I mentioned above, his storytelling ability is pretty darn good, but his resolutions to some of his plot lines leave a bit to be desired. Our party often flounders around from one plot hook to the next with little overall direction - <snip>

Second, I suspect the DM of favoritism. One of our players is blind, and the DM rolls all that player's dice behind the screen. Again, not a big deal until I realized that the DM and the blind player are both very good friends (the DM drives the blind player to the game every session) and the blind player's PC is virtually dripping with powerful magic items, to include two artifacts, at 12th level or so. <snip>

Third, I feel that the DM goes way too easy on us as a party. Last session, I joked that the undead guardians of the dungeon must have been programmed to "seriously injure" rather than "kill" intruders - twice, the said undead guardian turned away from a staggered or unconscious opponent to attack a fresh one. <snip>

Fourth, the DM seems unwilling to work with me on some issues. I was playing a dwarven wizard at first, and this was fun, but there was an NPC wizard in the party who was higher level and I essentially felt like a "tagalong." I sent the Dwarf Wizard away and made a ranger/archer type to fill another hole in the party composition <snip>
I asked the DM if I could bring the Wizard back at one level below the party average (i.e., 11th level) - I didn't feel it was an unreasonable request. I've done quite a few things for the game outside the gaming table that I thought might be worth some consideration - I converted and painted three miniatures for the players, brought a custom battle map to each game, and contributed a great deal of e-mail storyline and roleplaying material. So far, though, it's no dice. At this point, I'm considering sticking to my guns - either I get the Dwarf Wizard back at 11th level <snip>

And now we come to the final point that's bugging me about this game - the player dynamics. Our group is pretty good - the players all have good attitudes. But in character, we bicker a lot. There's a bit of a lack of trust in the group <snip>

So...you fine folks out there in ENWorld...what should I do? Drop the group? Or hang tough?

The style problems you are having, I agree, are too minor to leave a group for if you're still having more fun than not. If I had a player asking me to change the style of the campaign with respect to rolling dice secretly or rolling hit points every level, I'd tell that player flat out that it wasn't going to happen if the other players are reasonably satisfied with the way the game currently runs. I won't change stuff that fundamental for one player. While I tend to like to let the dice fall where they may when it comes to hit points, there are some rolls that should be secret. I tend to have some secret and some out in the open. The ones I roll openly I may, at my discretion, start rolling secretly if the game warrants it.

The resolution of plot lines and difficulty in determining what plot hooks to follow next are toughies. If other players feel the same way, you could ask the DM for a little more direction on where HE would like the campaign to go. You could also get the PCs together and get specific jobs for someone and then take on that organization's priorities as your own to help you iron out indecision. It'll help bring an overall set of goals and values to the party as a whole as well as bringing in outside authorities you can go to for advice (so the DM can feed in more direction and info).
Story resolution is, in some ways, just something a DM has to get better with over time. How many times have I watched Star Trek: Next Generation to watch a story develop interestingly over 40 minutes and then have it rush to a generally unsatisfying conclusion over the next 10? Many. So I'm hearing you there.

Favoritism is, I think, by far your strongest complaint. Ask the other players about it. It could be that the DM is a bit overprotective of his blind friend. It's a common thing among a lot of people who have friends with significant disabilities. It's also hard to deal with. The DM is unwittingly condescending to the blind player. The blind player may or may not even notice it, and may like it. This is an area to tread somewhat carefully. The question that really sticks in my mind is: Is this making the blind player's character the star of the campaign or do you get reasonably equal screen time? If the latter, then it shouldn't hurt the game much even if the DM is treating the blind player with kid gloves. I'd keep tally of this sort of thing as objectively as I could for a few sessions before calling anything out, though. You need data to back any complaints up and it may turn out that things are more even handed than you think.

As far as the DM being way too easy... would you prefer every monster did a coup de grace on any character tha goes down? I certainly don't DM that way. I try to play creatures realistically. If that means they leave an unconsious character alone in favor of a moving one, then that's what they do. Don't complain about the DM not savaging the bodies. Is it really realistic to do so when the monster doesn't really know that it didn't put the PC down below -10 and that the PC might still survive? Don't let your metagame knowledge of hit point mechanics color what is a realistic thing for your opponents to do. Most probably won't savage a body if there are other live characters nearby still fighting back. After all, once you're ALL down, it's a lot easier to make sure you're all dead safely.
And even if the DM is a bit too easy on your characters, that's not a bad thing all the time. Surviving risks isn't isn't the only reward for playing a RPG. Developing an interesting character can be a darn good reward too.

Letting the dwarf character back in at a higher level. You're not going to like this but if you quit the game on this issue, I think the DM and other players would be justified in considering you a prima dona player upset at not getting his own way. If the dwarf were 8th level when removed and the rest of the PCs were 12th, I'd probably only give you 9th level to reflect minor XPs received while not adventuring. While you've been a consistent player with another character, is it really fair for the dwarf wizard to have gotten his levels without the same risks taken by the other PCs?

Player dynamics is another tough issue. Have you told the other players that it's bringing you down? When the next bickering session starts just tell the other player "Time out. Now, I appreciate role-playing as much as anybody else, but I really get tired of how all the characters constantly bicker and nobody seems to want to play a character who trusts anybody even after adventuring together and proving trustworthiness. It really grates on my nerves. I don't expect PCs to get along all the time, but this whole Spock-McCoy thing all the time is getting really old." Bring it up and see what the others think. Is it possible they thought everyone was enjoying the bickering?

 

[WizarDru]

Just to make sure there's no misunderstandings, I feel that the biggest two issues with my group are the percieved favoritism (which, as was pointed out earlier, can't be proven and may not actually exist) and the DM's handling us with kid gloves. Taken individually, any of the problems I mentioned are no big deal. All together, though, I just get the feeling of "oy, what a mess."

Well, what do the other players think of the situation. Assuming that there IS favoritism and a sense of kid-gloves, have you discussed this with the two other players? Do they share your views, or have you not asked them about it? Perception of a bias can be as bad as a bias, depending on the situation. They would be good folks to fact check with.

Consider also that the bias may not intentional, of course, and that maybe the DM isn't even actively aware that he's doing it. He may simply think that you're enjoying the game as it is. If you don't tell the DM that you're not enjoying yourself, or not enjoying yourself as much as you might otherwise be, the chance exists that he doesn't actually know. If you consider it big enough problem to leave the group, then it should be a big enough problem to at least advise the DM or other players of your concerns.

 

[maddman75]

On the die rolling - am I the only one who realized that in D&D you can fudge while you are rolling in the open? I mean with all the modifiers, fighting defensively, expertise, power attack, and so on, why should the numbers be consistant from round to round? If you need to ease up on them, just decide that the swing that resulting in a 17, when you need a 15, he was power attacking for 3 that round. Or play with the ACs. Hell, I tell my players the AC of their opponent once they engage. Just tell me if you hit and how much damage so I can parse it into description - or better yet describe it yourself. I'm really not interested in guessing games.

All DMing is based on deception. You do not need to actually present a challenge or threat. All you need to do is maintain the illusion of a challenge or threat.

 

[Belen]

Ramien,

To me, it sounds like you joined an established group, then wanted to change them to fit your style of play, which is not cool. The main way to solve the problem is to be open and tell people the style you enjoy and see if anyone agrees.

Offer to GM YOUR style of play. In fact, you should GM and see the amount of work that comes with the job. As a player, it is really not your place to dictate the style and manner of play to the group or GM. If they all want more, then cool, but if they are having fun why should they want to change?

The GM is going to play the style in which he feels most comfortable, so you are not going to change him unless he wants to change. If he is having fun with the game and his style, then that is the way he GMs. Yes, he should be conscious of making it fun for the players, but it sounds like you're the only person with an issue.

As a GM, you would set the tone and style of the game. If you want change, then you should offer to bear the burden of it. Maybe the GM would like a break.

So, make the offer and see how everyone reacts.

Dave

 

[Jonny Nexus]

On the die rolling - am I the only one who realized that in D&D you can fudge while you are rolling in the open? I mean with all the modifiers, fighting defensively, expertise, power attack, and so on, why should the numbers be consistant from round to round? If you need to ease up on them, just decide that the swing that resulting in a 17, when you need a 15, he was power attacking for 3 that round. Or play with the ACs. Hell, I tell my players the AC of their opponent once they engage. Just tell me if you hit and how much damage so I can parse it into description - or better yet describe it yourself. I'm really not interested in guessing games.

Oh that's very true, but there are limits: you can't fudge when you've just rolled a twenty to attack and a maximum on the damage roll. The PCs know that they are operating without a safety net, and that whilst you might do what you can to help them, at the end of the day, if they slip... Well it's a long way down to a very hard floor.

All DMing is based on deception. You do not need to actually present a challenge or threat. All you need to do is maintain the illusion of a challenge or threat.

Very true. But - to get back to the point of the threadjack, if not the thread itself - illusion is the art of making someone think they see one thing when they're actually seeing something else. When you roll behind a screen there's no illusion involved: the players know exactly what it is that they are and aren't seeing.

 

[Von Ether]

Hmmm. From the title, I thought it was more of asking for general dissatisfaction compared to just the poster's problems. Am I dissatisfied? Pretty much, I quit GMing period and stopped playing d20.

Long story, short. I had a couple of players who are control freaks. If they play, they constantly barage me with loopholes and seemingly innocuous questions that lead to another loophole. But as GMs asking for even one "special favor" was an instant accuasation of min/maxing. A sort of "Do as I GM, not as I play" motto, which stung me since I ran games the way I'd like to play them -- larger than life characters to doing larger than life things. I used to be a story orientated, hide the rolls behind the screen GM until they came along. Every game was just a puzzle to crack and lord over. In the end, I had to become a dungeon crawl GM. I wasn't having fun and didn't have the time in my life anymore to GM.

As a player, all the games I see other people commited to are essentially the same. The GM barely converts an old AD&D module for his "campiagn" (a thread bare excuse to hop from one module to another). All the players bring tons of books so they can reference each feat they need. All the characters are designed as an arms race, who can do the most damage, have the highest AC, etc. Not interested.

Scary enough, I am a big fan of the Champions game I am in now. We spend several sessions doing detective work, no combat and last night the GM knew the combat was going to be so quick that he didn't bother taking out the mat or figs. The rooftop fight between us and some vampires took less than half an hour.

Absurd.

I have never heard of a decent GM 'open rolling'. It enables players to engage in all kind of meta-game nonesense -- viz. determining NPC attack and skill bonuses, hit points, levels (when casting spells), etc.

Indeed, I would greatly disrespect ANY GM who rolled did NOT engage in 'secret rolling'. Secret rolling is essential for any GM worth her salt to maintain a sense of drama and mystery.

On die rolling:
Welcome to DnD. To some it's a bug ... It's one of my pet peeves of d20 as a GM. For most players, it's a feature. They can accurately guage the danger of the encounter and plan according to "win."

I found that an "action dice" mechanic goes a long way to keeping the tension and drama up and still lets you roll out in the open. Essentially "tension and drama" are meta-game stuff, and you can play off some of gamer's quirks to play it up. You want to make a player nervous, watch him fail a Listen check and then just grin at him. It also helps if you make do these rolls occaisonaly, get a high number and tell him there's nothing there. If he knows you do random rolls to keep them guessing, it's as good as hidng the roll.