Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Empirate" data-source="post: 5843063" data-attributes="member: 78958">When I started up my first roleplaying group, NONE of us knew anything about RPGs. Somebody still had to DM (first a friend of mine, later myself), but we were all on the same level of inexperience. So when the DM made bad calls, the group told him what they though of it. Similarly, when one of the players detracted from the game, we worked it out as a group. That's how we - slowly, but steadily - learned to play RPGs: together, from each other, by communicating.The difference to your situation is the following: a power hungry sadist (so true dat!) enters the scene, telling everybody that they don't know enough to DM. He goes on to state that he's the only one qualified, and you better do as he says or there'll be no game.So what happens is that a hierarchy is established, in which the DM is the boss and the rest of you his bitches.What would happen if you ditched him and started over all on yourselves? First off, there would be no hierarchy from the get-go. Nobody telling anybody else what to do except by consensus. Second, you'll be learning the game better, since you're basically forced to do so (btw, tell your fellow players to put some work in and learn the darn game! No use learning the game together if two out of three people won't do it). Third, you'll develop a feel for what you feel comfortable with, what you like about the game, what playstyle gives you all the most fun, etc.All that said, sitting down with your horrible DM and explaining the problem in a very general sense (don't get too hung up on details! They're not the point) might be a good idea still. To me it sounds as if the DM is still in the early stages of learning RPG himself. You might still be able to include him in a constructive way.</blockquote>

Verification