Gaming Group Troubles

[chaochou]

Personally, I don't agree with the idea that we, as a group of posters around the world, can psychoanalyze the OP, or say his game sucked or his playstyle sucked or anything else.

In terms of advice, short-term: I don't see any reason to antogonize or burn bridges or set up barricades between you and any former players. If you want them to remain friends and potential players, treat them with the trust, courtesy and respect that demands even if you are feeling slightly 'wronged' at the moment.

Longer-term: Keep developing your preferred playstyle, look at your faults as much as your strengths, stay aware that your game won't suit everyone - and it's nothing personal if it doesn't - and look to enjoy your progress as a gamer.

 

[pukunui]

... 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 ...

I concur. My group's experience basically consisted of them going from one disaster to the next. I'll admit some inexperience on my own part. I hadn't ever GMed 3e before, and it had been many years since I'd last GMed 2e. So there was a bit of a learning curve for me there, and I repeatedly found various encounters in the adventure to be much more difficult in practice than they looked on paper.

In fact, Player #1 dubbed me the "DM of Death" after that campaign. And I think he may have gone into my Star Wars campaign expecting it to be as deadly as my D&D campaign had been, despite the fact that a) it's actually much harder to kill a PC in SWSE and b) I was determined not to repeat my past mistakes.

But anyway ...

Personally, I don't agree with the idea that we, as a group of posters around the world, can psychoanalyze the OP, or say his game sucked or his playstyle sucked or anything else.

In terms of advice, short-term: I don't see any reason to antogonize or burn bridges or set up barricades between you and any former players. If you want them to remain friends and potential players, treat them with the trust, courtesy and respect that demands even if you are feeling slightly 'wronged' at the moment.

Longer-term: Keep developing your preferred playstyle, look at your faults as much as your strengths, stay aware that your game won't suit everyone - and it's nothing personal if it doesn't - and look to enjoy your progress as a gamer.

Thank you very much, chaochou.

 

[Elf Witch]

Personally, I don't agree with the idea that we, as a group of posters around the world, can psychoanalyze the OP, or say his game sucked or his playstyle sucked or anything else.

In terms of advice, short-term: I don't see any reason to antogonize or burn bridges or set up barricades between you and any former players. If you want them to remain friends and potential players, treat them with the trust, courtesy and respect that demands even if you are feeling slightly 'wronged' at the moment.

Longer-term: Keep developing your preferred playstyle, look at your faults as much as your strengths, stay aware that your game won't suit everyone - and it's nothing personal if it doesn't - and look to enjoy your progress as a gamer.

I was going to say in my little quote it always amazes me when people can judge someone else game by what is posted on an internet.

Stupid cat jumped on the keyboard.

 

[billd91]

Personally, I don't agree with the idea that we, as a group of posters around the world, can psychoanalyze the OP, or say his game sucked or his playstyle sucked or anything else.

The man asked for opinions and it looks to me that pushing at the source of his issue may have helped generate some better understanding, certainly on our part, and I hope on his as well. At least, one of pukunui's response to Bagpuss suggests that to me.

It's a big step to really calling that psychoanalyzing, but I think we can fairly push at our and each other's assumptions, feelings, and opinions and the end results can be constructive.

 

[Rel]

It's a big step to really calling that psychoanalyzing, but I think we can fairly push at our and each other's assumptions, feelings, and opinions and the end results can be constructive.

And I'd remind everybody that we can do so politely and constructively.

 

[MrMyth]

My advice, inasmuch as I can give any this far removed from a situation I've only learned about secondhand...

...would be to continue playing the game on every other week. Keep your five players, rather than kicking anyone out of the group, because that will hurt friendships. (And just to be clear - giving an ultimatum as you have proposed, even if it puts the burden of choice on them, is equivalent to kicking them out of the group, and you will come across as the bad guy in that scenario.)

I definitely get your frustration. But it sounds like the only thing that has been taken away from you has been the ability to occasionally play on a weekly basis. I think causing serious bad feelings and dropping the group to only two players will do more damage in the long run.

What I'd instead do, if you want to improve your game, is sit down with the group and try and ask them what you can do to improve it. It seems unlikely that all you need is the 'momentum' of several weeks in a row. Greater concerns may be at hand.

Now, all that said - the DM should be having fun too. If what you need is indeed to ditch the existing players, and you won't feel bad about cutting those ties, maybe the solution is to go and recruit more players and go from there.

Or maybe try to find a compromise. You've got your two definite players. Maybe try and recruit one or two more who fit your game style. And tell the other players - especially player 2 and 3 who you have described - that you will occasionally run when their Pathfinder game is, but that it is ok if they can't make it.

That seems a much more reasonable approach to me. Having 3-4 players should still be enough to run on those off-weeks. Having a few players miss the game once every other month or so seems much less damaging than kicking them out entirely.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I get your frustration and feeling of betrayal. It's a shoddy situation, and the other DM definitely did you no favors by how they handled things. But it sounds like there are some more underlying issues beyond the schedule itself, and I suspect that genuinely forcing a confrontation is only going to result in bad feelings all around.

 

[pukunui]

I was going to say in my little quote it always amazes me when people can judge someone else game by what is posted on an internet.

Me too.

And I'd remind everybody that we can do so politely and constructively.

Thanks, Rel. My sentiments exactly.

But it sounds like the only thing that has been taken away from you has been the ability to occasionally play on a weekly basis.

Yes. But it's not the only "issue" at hand really. As others have suggested, there are other, underlying issues. And I think that I have to admit to myself that I may not be up for managing a large RPG group in the long run. I would much prefer to run a weekly game, and I did that at first, but I eventually had to admit to myself that I couldn't sustain that pace. Work and family and whatever else have to have a place too. I can't spend all my free time prepping for my RPG game (that being said, there are a number of things I could do to reduce my prep time, in which case I could possibly go back to running a weekly game - the main one would be to find a "fast and dirty" way of cooking up NPCs instead of going through the whole rigamarole of dotting every i and crossing ever t as one is wont to do with a fiddly d20 game; although I enjoy the "mini-game" of building characters, it is the most time-consuming part of being a GM simply because I have to build so many on a frequent basis).

Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that I am now at a point where I would actually like to try playing with only two players to see if that makes things any more fun/manageable for me.

I don't want to kick the other guys out of the group or cause any bad feelings. Would it be all right to just say something like, "Look guys, the current situation isn't working for me. I don't think I can manage. I would like to try something different, namely run a game for a much smaller group. I hope you don't mind."

That still doesn't sound quite right. As was suggested earlier, it may not be possible for me to let them down gently and politely at this point. But I'll do my best.

What I'd instead do, if you want to improve your game, is sit down with the group and try and ask them what you can do to improve it. It seems unlikely that all you need is the 'momentum' of several weeks in a row. Greater concerns may be at hand.

I agree. Momentum isn't the only thing, and Player #1 told me as much too when I spoke to him on the phone. He said something along the lines of playing more frequently isn't necessarily going to make things better. As far as I could tell, he thinks I've lost the plot and that the campaign/group is about to implode. He's not quitting, but he's not exactly being positive about it ... which I think probably doesn't help my own attitude. It only really reinforces my own negative feelings.

Or maybe try to find a compromise. You've got your two definite players. Maybe try and recruit one or two more who fit your game style.

This. I would like to try just having two for a while, but if that doesn't work out, or if the others feel a bit lonely or something, I'll look for some new players, but this time I'll make sure that they're more compatible with our style and way of doing things. I'll look for people who don't mind playing a bit loose with the RAW and who are more willing to communicate via e-mail and invest a bit of time outside of game night and so on.

Having a few players miss the game once every other month or so seems much less damaging than kicking them out entirely.

I can accept this on a rational level, but at the same time, part of me is resisting the idea because of the "hassle" of having PCs that pop in and out of the story. I've never liked that. We've tried everything in the past: having another player take over the PC, having the GM take over the PC, and so on. There was the odd occasion where a player got a "borrowed" PC killed (not on purpose though), so we mostly went with having the PC just not be present, even if that strained the narrative and our suspension of disbelief and so on. The thing is, we generally play lengthy, plotted campaigns. We don't really do episodic stuff that only takes a session or two to get through, so we can't really just have absent players' PCs "stay behind".

I realize that this is probably a fairly picyune problem, and that it's really only a problem because I'm letting it be one, but even so ... this is why I am hesitant to keep "intermittent" players.

Perhaps one option would be to let them run some of the NPCs or the shared PC when they want to show up, rather than giving them their own PCs to run. That way, I don't have to worry about a whole bunch of PCs that are only ever going to be around intermittently. Instead, they can be "guest stars" who just take control of characters that are already always going to be on-screen. Does that make sense?

Anyway, that's my take on it. I get your frustration and feeling of betrayal. It's a shoddy situation, and the other DM definitely did you no favors by how they handled things. But it sounds like there are some more underlying issues beyond the schedule itself, and I suspect that genuinely forcing a confrontation is only going to result in bad feelings all around.

Thanks, and I agree.

 

[pukunui]

Well, this is rather embarrassing, but it appears that my little "coup" will ultimately be short-lived due to the unanticipated involvement of a third party: my wife.

I can't remember if I mentioned it before, but I recently joined another group playing an epic-tier D&D 4e game fortnightly on Monday nights. According to my wife, she only agreed to me joining that game because I was no longer going off to play RPGs every Friday.

So yeah: she's vetoed my decision to increase the frequency of my Star Wars game. Well, she's said I can either go back to playing weekly on a Friday, or I can stick with fortnightly Friday and Monday games, but not both.

 

[pawsplay]

Well, the rationale for the OP has become moot, but a couple of things worth saying.

Yes, you've come across as very humble there. Good job. Can you please teach me how to be as humble as you are?

You could start by listening to people instead of being aggressive (e.g. sarcastic).

Yeah, you're probably right. I should really listen to you guys who've never sat at my table and seen me GM in person.

I told you straight up I don't know your table. I gave you my impression. The thing is, I don't really know you, although it's likely we've chatted on this board before and I may even recognize your name, and this thread might be most meaningful interaction we ever have. It doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things, whether you like me. If you hate what I have to say, I hold no ill will against you. But you did ask for help. In light of what I just said, that this may be the only possibly meaningful moment of interaction we ever have, and I do want to help you, this is pretty much my one shot. A lot of people took a very sympathic stance with you. I felt it was important be honest, especially if others may not be. I did not feel sympathetic.

Given that you've already admitted to competitive feelings about the other game, confessed to being a "control freak," and annoyed your wife by getting involved in games to the point where it's affecting the energy you spend elsewhere... I'm not going to gloat. Seriously, that's not the kind of person I am. But stand back and look at this situation. Does it strike you in any way that I was able to pick up from a few paragraphs, with very little context, that you were probably annoying people?

So anyway... my intention was not at all to injure you, and if I freaked you out, I apologize. I just don't think I was going to help you in any way by pretending that your story sounded to me like you were simply dealing with difficult external events. If we never talk again, if you want to put me on your ignore list, or whatever, that is truly okay. Really just trying to be the most helpful I could be in ninety seconds of your life.

Good luck, have fun doing whatever gaming you end up doing, and please... just remember what I said. It is not anyone in the entire universe's job to please you, except you. I don't know you really, but I want you to be happy, and if you can get a grip on that simple fact, you will be on the road to greater happiness.

 

[pukunui]

I've had an epiphany. I think this whole scheduling conflict and perceived betrayal thing is just a sideshow to the real issue. And yes, I realize that several posters have already suggested that.

Anyway, it's finally clicked that much of my misery stems from my dissatisfaction with the d20 system. I miss a lot of the random little flourishes that older games had but which the developers of the d20 system worked very hard to eliminate. D20 combat in particular is too predictable and too "safe" for my tastes. I want a bit more randomness. More bad stuff happening on a natural 1 and more extra-awesome stuff happening on a natural 20. I hate how in SWSE you have to take a feat just to be able to push someone or to give your grenade the concussive blast that it really ought to have built-in. I know that all of this was designed to "streamline" the game and "speed things up", but I realize now that for me, it's taken a lot of the fun out of combat.

My players mostly just go "I attack and deal damage". They don't ever take the abilities that let them do creative or interesting things, and they never ask if they can try to do those things without having those abilities in the first place. When the rules even allow for trying something untrained, there are generally massive penalties attached (-5 or -10), which just puts my players off ... and yes it would put me off too.

Last night I read through that "Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" that Water Bob posted. That really spoke to me. I think what I want is something in between. I want more randomness, but I don't want to do away with all the dice rolling on the players' parts.

So like I want there to be a chance that someone might lose their grip on their weapon when they get knocked over, but at the same time I'd give them a chance to avoid having it happen by making a DC 10 Strength check or something.

I want combat to be more dynamic, more dramatic, more exciting! It's just too "safe" and boring for me now. Perhaps 4e has had a more dramatic effect on my RPG tastes than I would've thought, and perhaps it's because I recently started playing it again that I've finally come to realize that. 4e combat is much more interesting because it's practically never about just dealing damage. There's almost always some extra little effect, whether it's forced movement or a status effect or teleportation or whatever, and all of that adds up to make things so much more interesting than in previous d20 games.

And this leads into some of the conflict that's been going on between the players. I hinted before about house rules being an issue. I think the three players I griped about earlier are more or less happy with the way the system works, but I am not. I think I am heading down a different path than they are. Our tastes are diverging. What we want out of an RPG is changing, but we're not going in the same direction. In the case of Player #1 and me, I would say we're headed in the exact opposite direction! He's come to hate house rules on principle (partly because he doesn't like not being able to look a rule up in his official rulebook), whereas I generally can't stand to play without them. He's come to despise pre-plotted adventures, whereas I still think they're a viable way to play an RPG.

So this is probably why I've found myself wanting to push those players out of the group. It's not just because I feel like they've betrayed me by choosing to go and play Pathfinder. It's because I don't know that I can continue to game with them when my preferences are so different to theirs. And the other thing, which goes back to my gripe about their poor e-mail communication, is that I honestly don't know exactly how for or against my zany ideas some of them are because they won't tell me! They're all obviously willing to put up with my ideas, because they all keep showing up, but I can tell that some of them don't like them, but they won't tell me that to my face, or if they do, they won't (or admittedly maybe can't) tell me why. What they do instead is avoid the stuff I've changed or ask if they can swap it out if it's something they've already taken for their character. And while I can understand that, and am perfectly willing to let them do that, I find it frustrating that they won't tell me. While I might be guilty of being a bit passive-aggressive myself at times, it's definitely a reciprocal thing. They're just as passive-aggressive, if not even more so.

And so the thing is: while I accept that not everyone has to like the things that I like or play the way that I play, I think I've reached the point where our varying tastes have become incompatible.

Whew!

For the record, this is all pretty stream of consciousness. It helps me to formulate my thoughts by writing them down and posting them. Just thought I'd mention that before people start jumping on me again ...