GMs - Do you get bored when you're a player?

[Thomas Shey]

Oh yeah, im not saying RPGs cant have boring combat systems, they certainly can. However, I dont view RPG entirely in the combat lens. For example, the OP mentions healer not being able to heal in combat, so cant do anything. Its like that role is supposed to make up the entire identity of the character. If they cant perform that singular action, the system isnt working or is boring. I dont view RPGs and characters in such a way.

Some of it is going to matter how much you engage with the mechanical/gamey parts of the game, too. While I can get plenty out of the roleplaying in a game, I get a more consistent focus out of the mechanical play bits (when they're decent and properly handled). It won't reach the peaks but it also isn't as likely to leave me just waiting.

 

[payn]

Some of it is going to matter how much you engage with the mechanical/gamey parts of the game, too. While I can get plenty out of the roleplaying in a game, I get a more consistent focus out of the mechanical play bits (when they're decent and properly handled). It won't reach the peaks but it also isn't as likely to leave me just waiting.

Agreed. I think engagement is both narrative and mechanical ideally. Not all the OPs issues were boring combat. Some of it was due to a bait switch from the GM. Like the example of the GM proposing a campaign that is all about finding rare items and identifying them. Once play started, that all got hand-waived making their item identifying character less useful.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agreed. I think engagement is both narrative and mechanical ideally. Not all the OPs issues were boring combat. Some of it was due to a bait switch from the GM. Like the example of the GM proposing a campaign that is all about finding rare items and identifying them. Once play started, that all got hand-waived making their item identifying character less useful.

My suspicion would be the GM had every intention of running the game he described, but was so used to action-adventure gaming of a traditional sort that he just couldn't help but slide into it.

 

[payn]

My suspicion would be the GM had every intention of running the game he described, but was so used to action-adventure gaming of a traditional sort that he just couldn't help but slide into it.

Yeap, that happens. Im a lazy GM and do not like fussy systems that cause homework that doesnt add to the exciting parts of an RPG. I could see myself saying this song and dance is not worth it lets cut to the chase. However, you need to be mindful of the fact someone built their PC specifically to do that song and dance. You either need to give them a new way to function in the same capacity, or you need to ask them to respec into something that will be fun instead.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeap, that happens. Im a lazy GM and do not like fussy systems that cause homework that doesnt add to the exciting parts of an RPG. I could see myself saying this song and dance is not worth it lets cut to the chase. However, you need to be mindful of the fact someone built their PC specifically to do that song and dance. You either need to give them a new way to function in the same capacity, or you need to ask them to respec into something that will be fun instead.

Yeah, having the game change functional tone without giving people a chance to back out of character concepts designed for the earlier tone is--not good.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

So much of the focus in this thread seems to be about combat. It's striking to me how large it looms!

So it hit your AC?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have a hard time not thinking like a GM when I play. If I feel the players are getting off easy or the GM is forgetting something that would make things more difficult for the PCs, for example, I have to fight to not bring it up with them. I also sometimes ask deep lore questions i find interesting that the other players tend not to care about.

I'm really just more comfortable being the GM.

 

[pemerton]

So it hit your AC?

You mean my amazement criteria?

 

[pemerton]

I dont view RPG entirely in the combat lens.

Yeah. I can list most of the checks/tests/conflict that were made in the session of Torchbearer 2e that I GMed on Sunday, because I keep a list of them as my method for tracking the passage of turns during the adventure phase.

I've s-blocked for length:

Spoiler

*Pathfinder, to travel to Wintershiven;
*Crafting Nature, to inspect the structure the PCs found;
*Scholar, to read the inscription on the structure;
*Theologian, to understand the ritual purpose hinted at by the inscription;
*Capture conflict - a combat to physically restrain a spirit manifesting via animated bones of an animal sacrifice
*Lore Master, to intuit the strengths and weaknesses of the captured spirit to various possible spiritual conflicts
*Remembering Nature, to recall the True Name of the spirit
*Abjuration conflict - a spiritual conflict to try and destroy the spirit
*Survivalist, to identify a good place to shelter while camping in/near the structure;
*Labourer, to clear away earth and plant-roots blocking the discovered door to the interior of the structure;
*Cartographer, to make a copy of the map "drawn" in relief on the walls of the interior;
*Ritualist, to perform the ritual of water purification identified earlier via Theologian;
*Scavenger, to look for any other loot in or around the stucture;
*Stonemason, to try and find further hidden areas within the structure;
*Flee/pursue conflict - an extended resolution to determine whether the PCs escape from the pirates pursuing them down the river;
*Pathfinder, to try and get bearings after getting lost escaping the pirates;
*Scavenger, to gather forage to cook;
*Cook, to cook the gathered forage;
*Pathfinder, to find the way back to the river;
*Scout, to try and avoid being spotted by the pirates looking for the PCs on the river bank;
*Capture conflict - a combat to avoid getting captured by the pirates;
*Convince crowd conflict - an extended social resolution to persuade the pirates that the PCs, captured by them, are actually associates of Tolub the pirate leader;
*Orator, to try and get a favour from the pirates in letting the PCs sail back down-river;
*Negotiate conflict - an extended social resolution to strike a deal in return for letting the PCs sail back down-river;
*Sailing, to sail the pirate's boat down-river;
*Scout, to avoid being spotted in a pirate boat as the PCs approach Wintershiven.

So we had six extended conflicts - two clearly combat (the Capture conflicts); one arguably combat, though in D&D it would be purely spell-casting, or a skill challenge in 4e (the Abjuration conflict); one physical but not combat (the Flee/Pursue conflict); and two social (the Convince crowd and Negotiate conflicts).

And then 20 other tests, none of which was about combat, but all of which had meaningful stakes and shaped the way events unfolded.

Some of it is going to matter how much you engage with the mechanical/gamey parts of the game, too. While I can get plenty out of the roleplaying in a game, I get a more consistent focus out of the mechanical play bits

As the list above shows, I don't see any very strong overlap between combat and the mechanical parts of the game.

I also don't see the strong contrast you seem to draw between roleplaying and mechanical play. When the players are saying what their PCs do - eg "I'm sure there must be more hidden caches here - can I use Stonemason to look for them?" that is playing the role of their PC, engaging directly with the fiction; and it also triggers a clear mechanical resolution process.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So much of the focus in this thread seems to be about combat. It's striking to me how large it looms!

This is a D&D board and 5e has been the current version of D&D for ten years. It's also IMO the most boring D&D combat has ever been.