Gaming Group Struggles

[Lanefan]

For character-specific events, just don't set them up in one session and finish them in another. Take the advice you've gotten several times in this thread and run in a more episodic style: keep such development complete w/in episodes where the appropriate player is in attendance.

Two things here:

First, I've learned (and re-learned!) the hard way to avoid character-specific plotlines like the plague, because as soon as a plot comes to depend on a specific character it's inevitable that that character will perma-die at the next possible opportunity.

Second, running 'episodic style' is far easier said than done*, particularly if you want to run anything bigger than a 3-room dungeon or a 4-encounter city adventure and even more so if the PCs are high-ish level. Hell, one major combat can easily chew up an entire session** (in any edition!).

* - unless your sessions are 12 hours long and your players are very efficient at getting stuff done.
** - my last session consisted of one major combat and the mopping-up (and ship repairs) afterwards.

 

[gepetto]

The simplest answer might be to just sit down with the players who dont want to play anything but D&D and find out why. If you guys have been playing together a while and they generally like how you run games you should be able to get them to at least TRY a session or two of another system that would be easier on you.

If that doesnt work, screw em. Either run D&D and dont plan for any party at all. Just create scenarios and then its their problem to figure out how to solve them, not yours. Or run something else and find a few new players to replace the ones that dropped. Players leave sometimes, its not the end of the world. Especially when their players who cant show up consistently anyway.

 

[GMMichael]

Or sometimes you don't have enough people to do any combat. Like the dragon encounter you planned for 5 players now has to be done by three people, without any access to healing, without high AC or damage potential.

Well, you could turn your dragon into a puzzle instead of a fight. At least it wouldn't be doing damage and TPKing that way. Branch out the options, and call for some checks if things get dull:

The dragon lands on the tip of the tower, dislodging several weaker stones from the structure. Do you want to get reinforcements while dodging dragon fire, attempt to hide under the straw roof of the stable, or run for the tower and try to safely dislodge more stones?

Healing won't be a problem once the PCs find the Wand of Cure in the charred hand of that dead cleric over there.
High AC won't be a problem if the PCs loot the dead cleric's tank friend.
Damage potential won't be a problem once the PCs "notice" the scale-free scar along the dragon's hind leg.

And if but 1 in 20000 who ever play D&D have what it takes to be a good DM then we're in bigger trouble than I thought. But we're not, as IMO the ratio is more like 1 in 20 or even lower; with about 1 in 5 meeting the 'halfway decent' threshold.

There's only one Deborah Ann Woll. So, it's not a good ratio. We could double that by getting Wil Wheaton to play some (more) D&D though.

 

[Randy_Robertson]

Well, so far we all seem to be agreed that we all have very different ideas about what makes a good GM. At least we're in the same book, if not on the same page.

Further, hyperbole of the type you've done discourages players from trying... It's not good for the hobby.

I'm interested to know how. Please explain.

 

[Tony Vargas]

First, I've learned (and re-learned!) the hard way to avoid character-specific plotlines like the plague, because as soon as a plot comes to depend on a specific character it's inevitable that that character will perma-die at the next possible opportunity.

Over-arching plotlines, sure. Keep the character-driven stories contained.

Second, running 'episodic style' is far easier said than done*, particularly if you want to run anything bigger than a 3-room dungeon or a 4-encounter city adventure and even more so if the PCs are high-ish level. Hell, one major combat can easily chew up an entire session** (in any edition!).

Running a full on J Michael Straczynski plot-arc is easier said* than done, too. But it's easier done if you have players that always show up. If you don't, episodic's the easier way to go, even if it's just marginally less unmanageable.

But, as I said before commending the episodic approach, also make the characters available, via henchmen-style versions, every session, even when the players aren't. So you can have continuity from one session to another, with all the same characters in the same place & time in the same adventure as last week, but keep the emphasis in that episode of the PCs with players actually present.

Y'know how in episodic shows, some characters hog one episode, then fade into the background in another? That kinda thing.

It may require a bit of legerdemain, now and then. Maybe you're in the middle of an elaborate combat with one PC's arch-nemesis when someone pulls the fire alarm at the FLGS, and next week, Murphy's Law intervenes and that PC's player is absent. A litle DM fiat, and the nemesis flees the battle or turns out to be a simulacrum, leaving an opportunity for another PC to step up and be the center of that episode.






* OK, maybe not /that/ easily said.

 

[aramis erak]

Well, so far we all seem to be agreed that we all have very different ideas about what makes a good GM. At least we're in the same book, if not on the same page.



I'm interested to know how. Please explain.

Because it creates the mental preconception that they're expected to fail unless they're a natural. The worst thing you can tell a new potential GM is, "GMing is hard, and good GMs are rare" - becuase you're setting up an expectation of failure.

It causes the types of reactions that a young lady, just about to go off to college, had had just over a month ago. She needed to be convinced were lies before she was brave enough to try DMing D&D. She tried, she succeeded, and players are sad she's gone. Her table, during her short (1 month) tenure as DM, was constanly excited and having fun.

Most people smart enough to play mid-level D&D 5 are smart enough to GM low level D&D 5 to an enjoyable level. Same for almost all other D&D editions, including Pathfinder.

Whether or not it's appropriate, people tend to put more faith in the written experiences of others than they should. And if you want gaming to continue, DBAD near other gamers, and don't tell people that good GMing is rare, even if your personal definition of good is some absurdly high bar.

Likewise, saying good GMing is easy is also a disservice, because it's not easy. It's within reach of most players, but it's not effortless, it's not readily done spur of the moment.

 

[S'mon]

GMing good enough to be fun is not hard or uncommon at all, certainly with 5e D&D. There are some systems make it harder. Also, I see little if any correlation between GMing experience and running a fun game. The worst GMs I've experienced tend to be the ones who've been GMing a long time and think they're Master Dungeonmasters. The most fun are often novices. (Of course some veterans are excellent too.)

 

[S'mon]

And he's got to have a plan to deal with every squirrely thing that the players will come up with to overcome the days or weeks of planning he's sunk into a single game session.

To me this spiel from my prospective GM would ring warning bells that he may be over-planning and may either have controlling tendencies, or risk burn out trying to prep for every possible eventuality.

 

[Campbell]

To me this spiel from my prospective GM would ring warning bells that he may be over-planning and may either have controlling tendencies, or risk burn out trying to prep for every possible eventuality.

Yeah. This idea that to be a GM you have to always have a handle on everything, never have an off night, perfectly manage the game, and never get stuck just does not jive with my experience of gaming or any other human endeavor. Game Masters are human. As humans we all have times where we do not bring our A Games. We all make mistakes and are occasionally stuck.

Running a game is a skill that we all develop over time. Sometimes we will have good nights and sometimes we will have bad nights. We learn from both and try to do better next time.

We also are not wholly responsible for the quality of any game session. We are just one player out of many. Sure we have different responsibilities than the other players, but it is up to them to bring their A Games as well. Gaming is all about the relationships we build with our players over time and how well we are all able to work together to have an enjoyable experience.

Finally this idea that the other players at the table are obstacles to a quality game session rather than like the part that makes this thing we do worthwhile seems crazy to me. That part where a player does something unexpected that completely alters the direction of the game - that is the fun part! It's the part where we get to collaborate and find out what happens! This is the entire reason I play these games.

I find that when you respect and value the contributions everyone brings to the table you do not have to be in this alone and it alright to not be perfect all the time. If you are stuck you can own up to it and the group can work it out together. If you are having an off night the other players can definitely step up in a big way. If you need a couple minutes or need to call things early you can just say that.

 

[aramis erak]

My daughter was running tonight - she was bored and frustrated, because her adventure "wasn't working"... but all 9 players were into the story elements, and engaged more than I've seen these players do...

Sometimes, the GM's reaction to things isn't the same as the players'.