Free to choose?

[Sir Whiskers]

Ah, you've hit something there: You almost never hear of a GM "stuck" running something he doesn't want to run, but you often hear of players stuck playing something they'd rather not play. Theory: GMs have the power because they are a rare commodity!

I respectfully disagree - GM's have the power because they put in the lion's share of the work. Players may leave the game if dissatisfied, but the GM really can't be forced to run a campaign he/she hates.

That said, I've been thinking about this problem for the past year or so - it seems my group has been gaming regularly, but not really excited about it. Seems more like gaming out of habit, rather than enthusiasm. For our next campaign (which should start in 2-3 months) I suggested we approach it a bit differently.

First, we're going with a different game system (Champions) - we're a bit burned out on 3E, and Champions won by acclamation.

Second, I'm trying to throw much of the campaign open to the players. My ground rules:
* No anti-heroes (it is superhero roleplaying, after all)
* Create characters that are team players
* Create characters that are effective in and out of combat, but don't min/max
* Stay within the total character points, tho exceptions will be made if the player makes a good argument

That's pretty much it. While I've given them a very basic timeline for when supers appeared in the world, the rest is up to them. The players chose the genre (Bronze Age). They create their backgrounds with few limitations - if a player wants his background to include a villain I've never thought of, no problem - I'll include the villain. If one wants to be an alien, or a mutant, or blind, or whatever, they can go for it. Later, I intend to offer XP for creating npc's, villains, organizations, newspaper reports, after-action reports, etc. - anything to involve the players in the campaign.

One thing that will help is that we're taking time to create the next campaign while still in the current one. Rather than finish a campaign and ask someone to have something ready in a week or two, we can agree on many issues beforehand. And by including the players in the design, I hope they'll enjoy the game more than if I just throw what I want at them.

That's the key to my mind - the game does not belong to the GM only. It's a group effort. Sure, the GM sets many ground rules and runs the campaign, but the game in general succeed or fails based on everyone's efforts. Not terribly profound, but it still gets forgotten too often.

 

[Liolel]

Am I stuck in a group I don't enjoy. The answer to that is no. I take turns with another dm, and that other dm is the one who started me on D&D so that dm has had a great influence on what I enjoy. But I have a different problem. The group is slowly dwindling. There is only 4 people dm included and often one of them can't come leaving a game of two players and 1 dm. To add to that one of the players is going to collage in the fall, so the group is slowly disappearing. I guess I'm going to become a skilled dm when running a small number of people at least.

 

[d4]

If a player is "stuck" then they should learn to DM. If the DM isn't running things the way you would, do it yourself. It isnt as hard to do as it may seem.

i've found that's not always a satisfying solution.

i've found that i have a somewhat different style of gaming and desires about gaming than the rest of my group. i can GM a game for my group that is exactly the type of game i like best, but within the current group i do not have the opportunity to play in the type of game i like best.

i do enjoy GMing, but i really wish i had the chance to play in a campaign that exactly matched what i really want out of gaming, instead of settling for something that's just all right.

 

[Eosin the Red]

I find that I am just as "stuck" in the DMs seat as I am in bad games. I decided about 4 years ago that I would no longer play when one of the 3 people willing to run - runs. His games are SO bad that I would rather sit at home and pour alcholol on self inflicted paper cuts. So we have 1 GM down, the other GM is planning on a game sometime in 2005 - and has been for awhile......

That means if I want to play, I have to run. So I run for a year or so then take a 6 month break, then run again. It really sucks never being able to play in games. I have also been "stuck" running games that I did not enjoy.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I'm as stuck as it gets...

My wife's learning to GM.

 

[WanderingMonster]

This is a hard question since my group are all pretty good friends, and I'm the GM for 95% of the games we've played. If I could answer for them, they'd say, "suffer through it," because I KNOW I've run some stinkers (I like to call them "experiments"), and they didn't flee.

I have stopped playing with groups I don't find fun, but only after a long stretch of misery. I love gaming so much that my tolerance for pain is quite high. I realized that I started to GM just so I could play the games—and the way—that I like.

 

[Nighthawk]

I would tend to agree that there are enough players who have to make the "play this game or do not play at all" choice. It's problematic and situational. I have yet to see a consistent and viable solution to this issue.

Then again, and this is IME only, many players simply do not make the effort to let gms and other players know what they are feeling and what they want to do about it. I am not saying this is true for the majority of players, just for those who I have encountered over the years.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Well, from personal experience, I'd have with agree w/ Eric. For most of my years of gaming experience, it basically boiled down to "game or not game."

Mind you, I was at the very least an introvert, or at the most suffering from social anxiety disorder (of which I've only been aware about since the last 3-4 years, & I've been gaming for 14+ years). I really think that my gaming experiences would be much different if I was aware of my anxiety early on.

In addition to this, it's been relatively slim pickings for most of that time, the other gaming group options haven't been appealing overall, & the "core" group I've been with consists mainly of people I've known since high school.

However, I haven't gamed for well over 6 months now. For one, my g/f isn't too keen on gaming with that particular group anymore (tabletop at least--she still participates in a PBeM Marvel game run by one of the typical players/GMs for the old core group).

Also, the group itself has been very unstable the past few years--a fair share of personal conflicts have caused a bit of turmoil; plus 1 player will attend somewhat regularly for a while, then drop out for months at a time, then slowly rejoin the group. Also, a fair amount of turmoil was due to old friendships (friendships that have been around at least since high school) turned sour as people grew up, grew older, & grew apart.

A few years ago, we'd invited some new players to fill the void of the aforementioned on-again/off-again player, but those new players were driven away because the on-again/off-again player was on-again w/ the group, he didn't like the new players, & it boiled down to a "me or them" issue (said on-again/off-again player was favored by one of the few remaining core members of the group; also the new players' style of play didn't mesh well with the old members' style of play). And, one of the regulars (out of the service & back in the group) still maintains his habit of "enhancing" dice rolls (which just gets under my skin--it's not an occasional, once-every-blue-moon sort of thing, but a regular habit).

It's not the games that drove me away from gaming--it's a string of lackluster to bad experiences with the group that has. We've had some new players around for a brief while, but I'm sure we pretty much wound up alienating them (so forming a new group with them instead doesn't seem feasible at all). And with the old group, despite any efforts to put an interesting twist to a game, or no matter how much background stuff I work on, I still get the feeling of "same old, same old" from the players due to the PCs they make & how they play the game. Doesn't give me much motivation to run at all (which I have to do at times, sometimes with little advance warning).

However, a key factor why I'm still not gaming now is because I'm unemployed--I've been unemployed since mid-January. I've pretty much resigned to find a job first before I start up gaming again (I've got a house payment & bills to cover--gotta keep my priorities straight).

I've also DMed a camapign set in a setting which I could care less for--the Forgotten Realms. Yet, it's popular with a fair # of the other group members, so I ran it. Playing Baldur's Gate helped psych me up for it a bit, but the decaying state of the group, & general lack of interest (displayed) by other players during the game pretty much killed any motivation I had to run the game.

PBeM gaming isn't my thing--goes way too slow, plus I lose track of actions & reply due dates (esp. when I was working). I've played a game online recently, & though interesting, it seemed a bit more chaotic than live tabletop gaming has ever been for me.

I enjoy gaming. I miss gaming. I know I still want to play & run games--heck, I'm still buying resource books & writing up stuff for future games. Yet, I just don't miss the mess associated with gaming with my regular group. Right now, not gaming is a necessary choice on my part, but when I do get a job and the choice is no longer necessary, I'm not sure I'm start up again (at least with that group). I'm sure there's a great gaming group out there, but I sure as heck haven't found them yet. (And, even worse, I'm not too sure they'd accept me in anyways--heh. Ah well.).

Sorry--didn't mean to vent & write a "woe is me" autobiography on my gaming life. Just trying to contribute my own perspective to the issue.

 

[fourthmensch]

Original post by DMScott:
Hmm. I play with a group of friends, always have - role playing games are something we enjoy, but not the sole basis of our friendships. So the idea of shopping around for different gaming groups seems weird to me; so does the idea of a DM running something players might not enjoy. When I run a game, I talk to my friends and we all figure out what would be fun; same when somebody else runs a game. That only makes sense to us, since it's in our best interests for everyone to enjoy themselves.

My situation is very similar. I have played with the same group for about four years now, and we have all been friends for over ten years. So when I found myself losing interest in some of the sessions, the thought of leaving never even occurred to me.

I decided to try my hand as a DM, and have found that I absolutely love it. It has worked out quite well with my group, since I have more time on my hands than most of them, so its not a big deal to spend a lot of time developing plot lines and such.

I think its a little funny that a lot of people talk about DMing as a burden, or definitely the second choice to playing. I find that I enjoy DMing games far more than playing, precisely because I get to design the game exactly as I would like it. Of course I take a lot of player input--after all, it is our game, not my game--but this way I am always satisfied with the quality of the game. Since we have rotating DMs, some of my style has even rubbed off on the more experienced DMs, resulting in a better game for everyone.

Maybe this doesn't work for other people. If you are really in the mood to play, then DMing isn't really going to help you. But for those people who are interested in salvaging a game that hasn't gone well lately, I would suggest taking the reins. Play the game exactly as you would like to play it, and maybe everyone else will pick up on your enthusiasm.

 

[S'mon]

Ah, you've hit something there: You almost never hear of a GM "stuck" running something he doesn't want to run, but you often hear of players stuck playing something they'd rather not play. Theory: GMs have the power because they are a rare commodity!

DMs have the power because DMing is hard work!
Playing is almost ridiculously easy by comparison. I'm a natural DM by inclination, but I love playing, it's so effortless! It makes vastly less demands on a person to be a good player than to be a good DM. As a player I try to contribute by providing minis to the DM, fetching tea, contributing to the group et al, but basically playing is easy and relaxing, whereas DMing is rewarding but can often be tough to do well, in 3e perhaps more than many other games. The 'players' rights' advocates you sometimes see on these boards annoy me when they equate the two, as if they're equal - they're not. A DM need players just as players need a DM, but no individual player is doing anything like as much as the DM has to to make a game work.