Free to choose?

[Henry]

Our group runs like a benevolent dictatorship with veto power. Usually, as DM, I suggest a course of action, and unless no one is violently opposed to the game, we run it. If there is a hue and cry from one of us, then we either

A) try to talk them into one or two sessions, before going back to familiar territory
B) make arrangements to only play that game when they are not playing in a given week
C) come up with something else.

9 times out of 10, we don't get to B or C, because everyone in the group is willing to try anything once in a while.

That way, everybody gets to try something neat once in a while.

As far as DM's, there are two of us, plus one DM-in-training, and I am the DM who is most prepared on short notice, so we play mostly stuff I run. I wouldn't mind getting out of the hot-seat a while (In fact, I'm playing instead of running tomorrow!!!) but because the other two are not as often prepared, and the group still wants to game, I don't get to.

 

[EricNoah]

The thing that makes "no gaming" such a non-choice, from my point of view, is let's say the campaign you are not participating in lasts a year. That's a long time to go without gaming, and in a sense you are no longer in the "network" of gamers for that group. You don't have the same opportunities, maybe, to form new groups or get connected with other groups if you just drop out for a year!

I was noticing kind of a resentful attitude in the low-magic/grim-n-gritty thread (players who felt their DM was "screwing" them over in those types of games) and was thinking "gosh, if it sucks so bad why not just stop playing?" And now the answer is clearer...

 

[Piratecat]

There are a ton of games in the Boston area, and I could afford to be picky. Heck - I *am* picky!

I run my game every other week. KidCthulhu runs Scarred Lands on the weeks I don't, and Sagiro also runs his game roughly twice a month. Umbran is running a once-a-month Marvel Superheroes that I play in with Chronosome, Sagrabah runs Spycraft every once in a while, and DaveLozzi is running a one-shot Dark Sun game that I play in with Gospog and Fluffaderm. Add my friendship with Wulf and some friends who run a good GURPS game, and I'd argue that my cup runneth over.

One of my hopes with occasionally running Boston EN World game days is that people would meet and game together; it seems to be working pretty well.

In general, though, I'd say that I'd rather not game than play in an unredeemably bad game.

 

[Ace]

Ok this might be a little bit of a touchy subject, but I'm curious...

Are you "stuck" in your game? What I mean is, if your DM wanted to run a game that you weren't all that interested in, would your choices be between "no gaming" and "gaming I don't enjoy"?

Here's my theory: most players don't know enough DMs (or have connections with enough gaming groups) that they really have the luxury of picking and choosing. So when it comes down to it, rather than not play at all, they sometimes get stuck in games they don't like. That's not a good situation sometimes!

Curious to hear your experiences...

Good question Eric!

My personal philosophy is that its good gaming or no gaming

Maybe I don't have the luxury to pick and choose games (and alas I don't) but I do have other ways to spend my time

I have books, writing (including game stuff if I wish) music, painting figs, chasing women etc etc

Gaming most of the time is work not fun anyway -- I get much more satisfaction yakking on the boards or playing collectable card game than I do RP gaming

I am unwilling to compromise on what systems are played, game style or anything else

The caveat is that if you play what I like (when we rotate GM's) than I will play what you like- It has to be reciprocal. I won't be the only one to compromise

I also reserve (for myself and others) a 3 session rule-- If the game isn't fun within 3 sessions than I reserve the right to quit. You have that right too

 

[Ace]

The thing that makes "no gaming" such a non-choice, from my point of view, is let's say the campaign you are not participating in lasts a year. That's a long time to go without gaming, and in a sense you are no longer in the "network" of gamers for that group. You don't have the same opportunities, maybe, to form new groups or get connected with other groups if you just drop out for a year!

I was noticing kind of a resentful attitude in the low-magic/grim-n-gritty thread (players who felt their DM was "screwing" them over in those types of games) and was thinking "gosh, if it sucks so bad why not just stop playing?" And now the answer is clearer...

Good point about the networking! Its been the only reason I put up with my current group

JMO my opinion (and a cynical one to boot) gaming would be greatly improved if everyone who wasn't happy with the hobby (this includes me BTW) flatly refused to participate -- Don't buy books, Don't post on the boards (oops too late) just quit.

The hobby would have a shakeout and maybe with a little luck could develope a common vocabulary so that people could find what they actually wanted

It sucks to be playing hack and slash when you wanted gritty and immersive (and vice versa)

Now if you are happy with both-- Great!

 

[EricNoah]

I'd argue that my cup runneth over.

You may be a ... bit of an exception ... for a variety of reasons!

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Our group has 2 DMs (I'm one of them), but we play as a group. We make decisions based upon what the group wants to do. The other DM took us from Forgotten Realms into Ravenloft. I had some lousy experiences back under AD&D so I was reluctant. After the release of 3.0 Ravenloft, it seemed better, so I agreed and so did the group. Unfortunately the DM just converted a 2.0 module to 3.0 and it was as I had experienced before, a great way for the DM to kill off characters. We hated it and insisted that we would finish the adventure, but we would return to the Realms afterwards. He agreed that if we really didn't want to do it, he would not make us.

 

[Shallown]

I'm lucky in that I am the GM. Theonly other GM runs games I have no problem playing in. I was at one time was the would rather bad game than no game but I came to a realization several years ago ina Game. I like dthe players and the GM but Didn't like the GM's style. So I quit. I knew that even though I had no other choices and might not game for a while I wasn't having enough fun to be worth teh effort. I also knew I would never bother to hunt for other prospects if I had a game. I needed to wnat to game again so quiting was my only choice.

Now I have a wife ,daughter and friends that if I didn't game I could still be social and have a fun life. I prefer to game but I can live without it. Well for a while then I gotta Game. There are always choices.

Later

 

[S'mon]

Well, my group has 3 games going currently - my high-level D&D homebrew, my Conan game, and StalkingBlue's Midnight game. So there's some choice there, and some of the players belong to other groups. But naturally the choice is to either play what a GM is offering to run, or don't play it. It's hardly fair to make a GM run something they don't want to, but you want to play in, is it?

 

[EricNoah]

More thoughts...

It's no secret that a lot of gamers are introverts, and as such may not always be the best communicators or great at resolving conflict. Maybe some "stuck" gamers have trouble expressing their feelings about a "bad" campaign? Maybe it's somehow easier to endure a bad game than to say what they really want, or quit gracefully.

I think a lot of us have an "ideal" of gaming that we would like to achieve. I also am guessing that we rarely reach that ideal. But we keep trying because ... it's awesome when it does happen. So maybe the attitude is: you've got to put in your time now to have that opportunity later?