Gaming Group Troubles

[ggroy]

Someone said earlier in this thread that there is no loyalty amongst gamers and that if they aren't having fun, they'll leave ... and yet these guys keep showing up (the only one who's actually quit the group is the guy running the PF game, and that wasn't because he wasn't enjoying it but rather because of some real life issues concerning his GF - sorry if I left that out before), and on top of that they have all told me that they don't want to leave (it's just that they don't want there to be any conflicts between the two games either), so I must be doing something that they like, right?

Do any of these individuals have a history of passive-aggressive type behavior?

 

[pukunui]

Yes, I am a control freak. I will not deny it. It is something I am still struggling to overcome. However, that being said, it has never, to my knowledge, been an issue in my gaming life prior to this. And I've been gaming for a long time. I've had games collapse before, but not because I was a control freak. The first game I ran for this group (and by "this group" I mean the same thing when they talk about an axe still being the same axe even after it's had both its handle and its blade replaced) ended badly because we were all getting burned out on the 3.5 rules and the Red Hand of Doom module was turning out to be discouragingly hard. The second one didn't exactly "end", but I stopped GMing it after becoming disillusioned with the 4e rules - but another guy in the group took over as GM and continued where I'd left off, with me as a player, until he too became disillusioned with the 4e rules.

Now, to be fair, I should point out that Player #1 (the one who is the only other remaining "founding" member of the group) was the group's Star Wars GM before me. Both of his campaigns collapsed as well, the first because it got to be too much for him (he was spending every single second of his free time prepping for it - and we were constantly doing things he hadn't anticipated and/or shortcutting the encounters he'd spent so long putting together), and the second because we got ourselves in over our heads and tried to fight a Sith Lord who was much too powerful and the party ended up all either dead or in prison.

My campaign was going quite well up until the restart this year. I blame it partly on the current module, as do my players. They know it's not purely me.

Anyway ...


EDIT:

Do any of these individuals have a history of passive-aggressive type behavior?

Not that I'm consciously aware of, but it's possible. I vented to my sister about this. She has nothing to do with gaming whatsoever, and her response was that she thought my players were all being very passive-aggressive. I'm probably guilty of passive-aggressive behavior myself. I hate conflict. It makes me physically ill. So I try to avoid it whenever I can. Which undoubtedly leads to passive-aggressive behavior. But I'm not sure that I'm that skilled at identifying it (either in myself or in others). Conflict resolution is a skill that I would dearly like to be good at.



I think something that's become clear to me in this thread is that I am well aware of many of my shortcomings, and while it can be helpful to have others point them out, I feel like the tone from some posters is very negative, which is not at all helpful. Do people really think that someone will want to change for the better if they point the finger at them and call them names? Instead of just saying, "You're a bad GM!", wouldn't it be more constructive to offer some practical advice on how I can become a good GM? Maybe this is just me feeling persecuted still, but I am starting to feel a bit jumped on in this thread. Would it be too much to ask for people to leave their judgmental "holier than thou" attitudes at the door when they come in?

I did ask for advice, and while at times it may not seem like I actually want it, I do appreciate constructive criticism. I just don't appreciate finger-pointing and name calling. Yes yes, "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" but you know ... I've never bought into that phrase. Names can hurt. Even more than sticks and stones sometimes. I guess that says a lot about me, eh? We've already established that I take things too personally. That probably just reinforces it. Sigh ...

Perhaps I should shift this discussion to a psychotherapy forum ... ?

 

[the Jester]

How do I politely let the other three know that I would now actually prefer it if they didn't keep coming?

I don't really think there's a way to do this without coming across all butthurt. It will be obvious what triggered your move, and I think it'll come across as crybaby at best, petty and vindictive at worst.

But what do you want me to say or do about it now? How would you suggest I proceed?

I gave my suggestion earlier: accept that not every player will play every session and cry, "But the game goes on!" Keep your group while recognizing that not every game will have every player, but if you have your quorum, PLAY. Don't cancel because someone else can't make it- it's their loss.

If you find that you have plot elements that require a pc that isn't there that night, reduce the amount of specific-pc plot you use.

 

[ggroy]

She has nothing to do with gaming whatsoever, and her response was that she thought my players were all being very passive-aggressive.

I've played rpg games with passive-aggressive types as players in the past. In practice, I've found that I had to be very direct and upfront with them.

In a few cases, I ended up resigning the DM chair when I knew in my heart that I was unable to produce a game they wanted.

 

[ggroy]

Do people really think that someone will want to change for the better if they point the finger at them and call them names? Instead of just saying, "You're a bad GM!", wouldn't it be more constructive to offer some practical advice on how I can become a good GM?

I don't know how much advice I can give for DM-ing.

My normal style of DM-ing would be "hell on earth" for a control freak type person.

But with that being said, basically the players in my D&D games get to decide how the game is conducted. Before the game even starts, I ask them to explain in great detail of what exactly they want and what they do not want in a D&D game. This means everything: chargen, setting, houserules, etc ... all the way down to minute details of random monster encounter tables, fudging dice rolls, etc ...

I'll tell them what the consequences of their choice of house rules are, as to whether it will make the game too easy or too hard. (A game which is too easy, can get boring very quickly).

In many ways, I'm probably more like a human "computer" than a DM in my games.

 

[pukunui]

You know, I would actually love to try that someday. I'm not sure I'm quite ready yet (as is no doubt evident in this thread), but it's sort of what I hold to be the "ideal". I would love to be better at improvising and just going with the flow.

The thing is: the guys asked me to run Dawn of Defiance. We all knew going into it that it was going to be a fairly railroady plotted adventure. While I don't have a problem with railroading as a GMing technique in general, I prefer it to be subtle. That being said, I would love to try an open-ended sandboxy player-driven thing sometime. I think some of the players in my group are ready for that sort of thing, but others are not.

One of the challenges I've faced with this group over the years (and changes of personnel) is getting many of the players to engage with their PC and see him/her as more than just a collection of numbers and words on a piece of paper. Some of them get into it, others don't. And that's fine. But it is kinda hard to roleplay when you haven't got much to go on in the first place.

Anyway, I think things will work out well going forward because the two remaining players are both very story-oriented gamers. They don't really care about the rules or the mechanics of their character. Or at least they don't care as much about those things as they care about the story and about their characters and the interactions they have with NPCs and the like. One of them, the girl gamer, is very much a "What Would My Character Do?" type of player, which is fantastic. The last thing we did last summer was a sidequest that I came up with myself (well, it was loosely based on a short mini-adventure from one of the supplemental books) and which, incidentally, everyone loved - during the adventure her PC found and rescued her brother. The player has just suggested to me that I use her brother as a support character for the downsized party because she didn't feel the two siblings would want to be separated again, which is funny because I was thinking of using him myself.

The other one, my "mentor", is a bit more interested in combat than the girl is (understandably) but he's just so jazzed to be playing Star Wars and he really gets into his character a lot too (a rebellious clone trooper who refused to carry out Order 66 and has now killed more than his fair share of his "brothers" who went on to become stormtroopers). I've had several good conversations with him about all this already. While he agrees that I am taking some of it too seriously, he also agrees that maybe it's just time for a change.

Neither of these two players seem to be at all upset that we'll be downsizing to just the two of them. And frankly I am very much looking forward to it. It'll be more intimate, for one thing. For another, I think the game will go much more quickly while at the same time not feeling as rushed. With so many players at the table before, combats got pretty slow and there were a number of players who were always impatiently hurrying other people along, particularly the girl who has only ever played PbP games before and thus isn't used to the pressure to act quickly and decisively during initiative combat at the table.


All right, so I'm starting to ramble again. Gotta go help put the kids to bed.

 

[Bagpuss]

Yep. That's what I said I was going to do from now on. If one or both of my remaining players (or I) don't feel like playing my game any given week, for whatever reason, then we won't play. I won't pester them to change their minds or give them grief about it at all.

I'm just wondering why you can't extend this same courtesy to the other three players? So in fact you are saying you would be fine if the remaining two players said, actually we are going to keep playing the PF game alternate Fridays?

Seems to me the PF game has very little to do with why you are getting rid of these players.

 

[Bagpuss]

I've had games collapse before, but not because I was a control freak. The first game I ran for this group (and by "this group" I mean the same thing when they talk about an axe still being the same axe even after it's had both its handle and its blade replaced) ended badly because we were all getting burned out on the 3.5 rules and the Red Hand of Doom module was turning out to be discouragingly hard.

Hold on a second are you my DM? We had exactly the same experience with that adventure.

 

[pukunui]

I'm just wondering why you can't extend this same courtesy to the other three players?

That is a good question. I'm not entirely sure of the answer. I think it's possibly because the difference is that they would want to hold me to the normal fortnightly schedule, whereas the other two, while they may have something else they want to do every once in a while, are unlikely to not want to play every other Friday.

They want a schedule that is rigid and predictable. I want one that is more fluid and spontaneous. There's nothing wrong with either method. However, I don't think it's going to work for all of us to stick together any longer. I've come to accept that now. As several people have pointed out, it's time to stop trying to hold things together and just let go. I'm not generally good at letting go, but in this case, I think I've done it. I've let go of trying to manage a large group. I think managing a smaller group of two will be much easier.

So I guess what I'm getting at is that I've come to realize and accept that what those three want is different to what I want and that it's futile to try and keep us all together. It's time to part ways. Hopefully at this point we can still do so amicably. I would like to continue to be friends with them if possible.

So in fact you are saying you would be fine if the remaining two players said, actually we are going to keep playing the PF game alternate Fridays?

If they said that, then yes, I would give up and stick to the alternate Friday schedule. But I have already talked to them about it, and they are fine with my "play it by ear from week to week" idea.

Hold on a second are you my DM? We had exactly the same experience with that adventure.

I don't think so. I live in New Zealand. We managed to get all the way through the first three chapters of RHoD before suffering a near TPK. We decided to continue, so we made a whole new party of adventurers only to have them nearly get TPKed in the Battle of Brindol. At that point, we decided to give up, so we never bothered to play through the final chapter (which, to be honest, does feel kinda tacked on anyway). I was only disappointed because it meant I didn't get to see my players' faces when I plonked my Huge-sized Tiamat mini on the table right at the end.


Also, thank you for being polite. I appreciate it.

 

[Bagpuss]

I don't think so. I live in New Zealand. We managed to get all the way through the first three chapters of RHoD before suffering a near TPK.

We suffered a near TPK facing the Ghostlord, after that we just got bored with the 15 minute work day, you had to have to survive that part of the adventure, when it was meant to be a race against the clock.

Seemed the adventure was too hard to reflect the time line it imposed on you. Bit of a shame as I was playing a Knight with the Leadership feat, and gone to the bother of shorting out my followers into fighting units and support rolls.