Gaming Group Troubles

[JoeGKushner]

A difficult bit. I've had similiar incidences when I was in high school due to so many people wanting to GM and so many people having difference preferences of who we played with, what game system we ran, and what was the new 'hawtness' at the store, ranging from new editions of Champions and Warhammer, to Rolemaster and D&D itself. I also made the mistake of trying to have an 'open group' where pretty much everyone was invited but just because A is friends with B doesn't mean X doesn't hate the out of A and won't come to the game.

In addition, house ruling can be a very funny thing. Some people like official style games because they know exactly what to expect. Others like to game the house rules.

Lastly, taste vary. They may like fantasy more than Star Wars. It might have little to do with the game system.

Were I you, wondering what the players liked in that game, I would definately head on over, even if just to watch. Learning how other Game Masters run their games can give you a ton of pointers and ideas on what a particular set of players may enjoy. Even when you speak to the guys and ask them for feedback or what they like, they may not be able to articulate it.

It could be like art. "I may not know art, but I know what I like." type of deal.

As far as feeling betrayed... well, either these guys are your friends and gaming is one thing you do together and you'll get over it, or these guys are just people you game with and your preferences have changed. As I get older, I'm more willing to game with people who aren't my friends because my friends own time schedules are so out of whack with mine that if I only ever gamed with my friends, it'd be few and far between.

Even with people you've game with a long time, they may not be your friends. It requires more than slinging some dice together to develop good bonds of friendship. Don't misunderstand me. Some of my oldest friends I've developed through gaming, but I don't expect everyone I game with to be my friends, nor am I out trying to expand my social circle through gaming. Between work and hell, life itself, there's never enough time to do everything I want as is.

 

[Glade Riven]

@pukunui: I think the biggest problem right now is that you are pushing on your players. While I understand why you are pushing, and may be justified in pushing, people don't like to be pushed.

I would suggest a couple of things:
1. Back off on pestering for feedback. Your players obviously are having trouble putting into words just what it is that bothers them about your playstyle.
2. Adjust your playstyle or get another group. You've already admitted that your playstyle conflicts with your players, which leads to violating my 4th rule of DMing: Make sure people are having fun. Obviously, they are not having (as much) fun.
3. Stop acting like you deserve to be the center of your player's world. This may be why the 4e campaign failed
4. Ask to sit in on the Pathfinder game. It is different than by joining in actual play. This is about hanging out with the other gamers. Granted, if you've been half as moody about this in real life as you've been in this thread, I wouldn't necessarrally say "yes" if I was the new DM. Bribing with pizza and beer/soda may work.

Sorry, but this looks like a DM problem and not a Player problem.

 

[Rel]

Your gaming group had problems before this. You just weren't acknowledging them.

At a point where playstyles are divergent enough, you're no longer really gaming with people. You're just nervously steering a flimsy boat through a bunch of mines.

You cannot, and should not, be trying to change anybody's playstyle. You can, and should, require open discussion about what people (including you) like in gaming and require open agreement about where the "sweet spot" is that is going to best accommodate those things. And you should be willing, even eager, to let people go from the group whose styles are not compatible with that sweet spot.

It sounds like that's where you are.

But this is not a wrong that needs to be forgiven. It's just the natural consequences of a problem that you weren't already dealing with.

 

[pukunui]

This situation really isn't a problem at all. It shouldn't have even gotten to the point that it has because you forgot one little thing that fixes every gaming group...

...get a girl in the group!

Well, actually, we have got a girl in the group already ...

Cue the next thead: "I invited these girls to our group and they stole my players away to go on dates, HELP!"

LOL

As far as feeling betrayed... well, either these guys are your friends and gaming is one thing you do together and you'll get over it, or these guys are just people you game with and your preferences have changed.

I thought they were my friends, and I guess I was hoping that they would side with me rather than the other guy. But it's OK. I think I am over it now. I'm still kind of upset about the overall situation, but I'm now actually looking forward to having a downsized group of only two players instead of five or six.

Between work and hell, life itself, there's never enough time to do everything I want as is.

Tell me about it ...

Your gaming group had problems before this. You just weren't acknowledging them.

In the immortal words of Homestar Runner, yeah you're probably right.

And you should be willing, even eager, to let people go from the group whose styles are not compatible with that sweet spot.

It sounds like that's where you are.

Yes. I am now. Very much so. It actually feels kind of refreshing now.

I've got it all sorted. I'm going to have my two remaining players keep their current PCs, but I'm going to give them a third PC to share, and I'm also going to further round out the party by giving my girl gamer the animal companion she wanted when she first joined the group (she comes from D&D 3.x, and so we used the ranger class as a point of reference for her, but I vetoed an animal companion - even though there are "rules" for them in the last SWSE book - because of the size of the group, which was seven at the time). I think I'll give the other guy (who has become something of a mentor to me as well as a very dear friend) some kind of NPC droid minion or follower just to keep things even. That should help keep the party at an appropriate power level without giving the players too many primary personalities and such to try and roleplay and develop all at once.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Of the three players that are playing PF, why are you deciding that they are out, especially the third one? Now, it could be reasonable to expect that #1 is gone (though you might be surprised), #2 is iffy, and #3 has a decent shot of staying. But that's just an educated guess on your part.

What I'd do instead is decide what you want to do with the other two players, do that, and invite the three PF players to participate if they want. If that means that one of them stays in but sometimes misses a session for PF, so be it. It isn't hard to work around. If they walk, they walk. If they don't, then they might change their minds later.

Basically, there is no good result from burning bridges with any of the three of them, especially the #2 and #3. If the actions that you and the remainder of the group choose for your own happy reasons, cause them to burn bridges--well, now that's their problem. You can only control yourself.

 

[pukunui]

Of the three players that are playing PF, why are you deciding that they are out, especially the third one?

Because a) I'm feeling like I need to shake things up, and b) I'd rather not have to deal with irregular players/PCs.

What I'd do instead is decide what you want to do with the other two players, do that, and invite the three PF players to participate if they want.

This is essentially what I have done. I've told them they're still welcome at the table, but that I'm not going to stick to the regular fortnightly schedule, so if they're not comfortable with the idea of missing sessions on a fairly regular basis because of their commitments with the PF game, then I won't mind if they choose to stop playing altogether.

I actually kind of wish I had just pushed them out (politely, of course), because, as I said, I don't want to have to deal with PCs and players who are only there every other session or so. I think that would be too annoying and headache-inducing.

What I'm thinking at the moment is to wait and see how I get on with just the two players. If that goes well, I might just tell the other guys that I enjoyed having a game with just two players and that I'd like to continue with that for a while.

 

[Bagpuss]

Because a) I'm feeling like I need to shake things up, and b) I'd rather not have to deal with irregular players/PCs.

Yet you expect the players to deal with your irregular DMing? Seems to me the players are all willing to make a regular commitment of once a fortnight, it's you that is the irregular one.

This is essentially what I have done. I've told them they're still welcome at the table, but that I'm not going to stick to the regular fortnightly schedule, so if they're not comfortable with the idea of missing sessions on a fairly regular basis because of their commitments with the PF game, then I won't mind if they choose to stop playing altogether.

Oh right so your players have to put up with your irregular schedule, but you can't deal with irregular players...

I actually kind of wish I had just pushed them out (politely, of course), because, as I said, I don't want to have to deal with PCs and players who are only there every other session or so. I think that would be too annoying and headache-inducing.

Kind of like your irregular campaign schedule you mean? I can see why they might prefer a DM would is a little more predictable.

 

[pukunui]

Oh right so your players have to put up with your irregular schedule

Nobody has to put up with anything. If they don't like it, they don't have to keep playing. I thought I made that quite clear.

but you can't deal with irregular players...

Nope. Going forward, I think I only want to play with people who can be as flexible as me. I'm a fairly spontaneous person and I'd like to be able to play it by ear from week-to-week as to whether or not we play on any given Friday. If I haven't been able to prep enough material, or if one or more of the players has something they'd rather do (or are obligated to do) that Friday, then we won't play. Otherwise, it'll be game on as usual. I can understand how that might be problematic with a larger group, but I don't see it being an issue with just two players. And luckily both of those players are quite flexible.

I can see what you're driving at, Bagpuss, but is it really necessary for you to be so snarky about it? Given your chosen username and avatar, I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised by your tone, but still ... it's not particularly helpful.

 

[Bagpuss]

Nobody has to put up with anything. If they don't like it, they don't have to keep playing. I thought I made that quite clear.

Actually I thought they made it clear to you. At least that's what you implied at the start of this thread.

Nope. Going forward, I think I only want to play with people who can be as flexible as me. I'm a fairly spontaneous person and I'd like to be able to play it by ear from week-to-week as to whether or not we play on any given Friday.

Unfortunately I think you'll find most people prefer regular commitments. They are much easier to plan for.

If I haven't been able to prep enough material, or if one or more of the players has something they'd rather do (or are obligated to do) that Friday, then we won't play.

Unless that happens to be say an obligation or preference to play Pathfinder?

Otherwise, it'll be game on as usual. I can understand how that might be problematic with a larger group, but I don't see it being an issue with just two players. And luckily both of those players are quite flexible.

Because they have to be otherwise they will be out like the other three I suppose.

I can see what you're driving at, Bagpuss, but is it really necessary for you to be so snarky about it?

I'm just pointing out the double standard you seem to have.

Given your chosen username and avatar, I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised by your tone, but still ... it's not particularly helpful.

I'll have you know Bagpuss is a very loveable cat.

 

[evileeyore]

I'll have you know Bagpuss is a very loveable cat.

Your avatar is now a grumpy old lady sippin tea... not the usual happy fluffy muppet cat.

Which I why I've kept my avatar the same for so long. Annoyed Cat is annoyed.


And pukunui sounds like a bad DM.