GMs: When Is Enough Enough?

[Theory of Games]

This is shocker for the Gamemasters out there, so players can take 15.

What do you do when you're running an adventure or you're early into a campaign and realize you are NOT feeling the game system? Some rule or collection of rules is triggering your "NO FUN" sensor. Or maybe the setting feels wrong - you're in the Middle Ages but your really wanted something more Iron Age. Worse still, the players all seem to be enjoying themselves. It's a tough spot to be in and I've been there a few times - it can be a real crisis at the table.

I tend to hit the brakes and let the group know I'm not enjoying things, and I explain the problem to them. Then we usually make whatever adjustment works and move on - "move on" meaning a campaign restart with slightly revised expectations. Usually if there's a rules issue, I toss in a house-rule that works for the group (me mostly). There's also been a few times where we don't move on and the campaign ends completely, sometimes abruptly (depends on the group). I guess I never feel the need to continue running something I don't enjoy, which can suck for the players unfortunately. But, I've heard of GMs hanging in there despite their issues, so I wanted to get your experiences and opinions. I'm always trying to be the best GM I can and that requires the ability to learn from others.

How do you handle rules or setting discomfort at the table? Am I wrong? Any horror stories? Best practices?

 

[thullgrim]

We have a 6 session minimum rule for games. One shots aside we can typically tell within 6 session whether a game is going to work, needs house rules for us, or if we need to bail. It also gives my players time with their characters. We might have to house rule something if we find it particularly egregious but normally we try to keep it raw until the 6 session minimum has been met.

 

[payn]

One constant i've discovered in gaming is a lot of folks say they want a long campaign; few actually do. RPG is a tough nut to crack. Most folks dont dive into the theory or spend considerable time reading reviews and have discussions about playing. They just do it, when they can do it. Which, means a lot of discovery is happening hands on in the moment.

That said, I dont launch long term campaigns unless I know the players want it. I will one shot or short term play anything with nearly anybody. Like anyone else, im still learning too. After getting through the typical forming, norming, storming process with people, that is when im comfortable to run a long term campaign.

So, a series of trial and error over decades has told me a few things about myself. First, I know what systems I like, and which I dont. Of course, new ones are always being launched, and old ones are being given new editions. So, I do consider it an ever moving target. Though, I have lock down favorites ill never flinch using. Second, unlike a lot of folks, I know what I like and want a bit more than the average player. I do happen to like long campaigns and know exactly what goes into making them successful. Im just as much a factor in that as my players are. So, I dont take the job lightly becasue I dont want to waste anybody's time.

Though, folks certainly shouldn't feel bad if they find out after launching it just wasnt right. Its going to happen and while you can take measures to prevent it, nobody can predict it. The best thing is to be honest and let folks know why its happening.

 

[Theory of Games]

We have a 6 session minimum rule for games. One shots aside we can typically tell within 6 session whether a game is going to work, needs house rules for us, or if we need to bail. It also gives my players time with their characters. We might have to house rule something if we find it particularly egregious but normally we try to keep it raw until the 6 session minimum has been met.

That's a good waypoint. Too long for me, but six sessions would probably be ideal for most groups. For me, after the first combat is done I know what I need to know. But. I'm impatient (a universally bad trait) and if something "feels off" for me at the table, it's a big distraction. Wish I had your patience

One constant i've discovered in gaming is a lot of folks say they want a long campaign; few actually do. RPG is a tough nut to crack. Most folks dont dive into the theory or spend considerable time reading reviews and have discussions about playing. They just do it, when they can do it. Which, means a lot of discovery is happening hands on in the moment.

Yeah I remember it being that way in the beginning: just playing when we could with not a lot of focus on anything except playing. The players had fun but I hated it because it turned the DM into a game console.

That said, I dont launch long term campaigns unless I know the players want it. I will one shot or short term play anything with nearly anybody. Like anyone else, im still learning too. After getting through the typical forming, norming, storming process with people, that is when im comfortable to run a long term campaign.

So, a series of trial and error over decades has told me a few things about myself. First, I know what systems I like, and which I dont. Of course, new ones are always being launched, and old ones are being given new editions. So, I do consider it an ever moving target. Though, I have lock down favorites ill never flinch using. Second, unlike a lot of folks, I know what I like and want a bit more than the average player. I do happen to like long campaigns and know exactly what goes into making them successful. Im just as much a factor in that as my players are. So, I dont take the job lightly becasue I dont want to waste anybody's time.

Though, folks certainly shouldn't feel bad if they find out after launching it just wasnt right. Its going to happen and while you can take measures to prevent it, nobody can predict it. The best thing is to be honest and let folks know why its happening.

Agreed. I know what I like as well system-wise, but sometimes I get caught in the open trying a new system because there's players begging for it. I ran Shadowdark for that reason and it wasn't bad - I mean it's B/X with some 5e elements so I knew where I was with the rules. It was a short one-shot and the players got bored with it before I did, which works since I wouldn't have lasted a full campaign with the PCs having 'Death Saves' and 'Advantage' on everything

 

[The Soloist]

All five of us are GMs and we rotate duty, changing systems every two or three months. If we don't like the RPG system, it's off the table after the first completed adventure. If we like it, we may come back in the rotation with a different GM or the same one.

So far, we've played only published adventures. We do not do 'open-ended campaigns' D&D style. We've done strings of published adventures. The longest, with Vaesen, was four adventures of 2 or 3 sessions each.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is shocker for the Gamemasters out there, so players can take 15.

What do you do when you're running an adventure or you're early into a campaign and realize you are NOT feeling the game system? Some rule or collection of rules is triggering your "NO FUN" sensor. Or maybe the setting feels wrong - you're in the Middle Ages but your really wanted something more Iron Age. Worse still, the players all seem to be enjoying themselves. It's a tough spot to be in and I've been there a few times - it can be a real crisis at the table.

I tend to hit the brakes and let the group know I'm not enjoying things, and I explain the problem to them. Then we usually make whatever adjustment works and move on - "move on" meaning a campaign restart with slightly revised expectations. Usually if there's a rules issue, I toss in a house-rule that works for the group (me mostly). There's also been a few times where we don't move on and the campaign ends completely, sometimes abruptly (depends on the group). I guess I never feel the need to continue running something I don't enjoy, which can suck for the players unfortunately. But, I've heard of GMs hanging in there despite their issues, so I wanted to get your experiences and opinions. I'm always trying to be the best GM I can and that requires the ability to learn from others.

How do you handle rules or setting discomfort at the table? Am I wrong? Any horror stories? Best practices?

I do exactly the same as you. Mostly we restart the campaign, sometimes we do something else. No point IMO to run a game I'm not enjoying.

 

[schneeland]

I guess it's a bit easier for me, because I stopped running longer campaigns when I nearly burnt out on GMing a few years back. Now it's mostly one shots and shorter campaigns, so if I notice the wheels of a game system come off after a session or two, it's usually not a big problem to continue until the planned end.
That being said, when I did still run longer campaigns, I found - and that's an experience I also had as a player - that if either the group or the game system is new (as in: new to at least some people in the group), it's better to run a single adventure and see if everyone (including me) wants to continue afterwards. Weirdly, things that were planned as big campaigns right away fell apart more often then the campaigns that grew out of such smaller endeavors.

 

[Distracted DM]

One constant i've discovered in gaming is a lot of folks say they want a long campaign; few actually do. RPG is a tough nut to crack. Most folks dont dive into the theory or spend considerable time reading reviews and have discussions about playing. They just do it, when they can do it. Which, means a lot of discovery is happening hands on in the moment.

That said, I dont launch long term campaigns unless I know the players want it. I will one shot or short term play anything with nearly anybody. Like anyone else, im still learning too. After getting through the typical forming, norming, storming process with people, that is when im comfortable to run a long term campaign.

So, a series of trial and error over decades has told me a few things about myself. First, I know what systems I like, and which I dont. Of course, new ones are always being launched, and old ones are being given new editions. So, I do consider it an ever moving target. Though, I have lock down favorites ill never flinch using. Second, unlike a lot of folks, I know what I like and want a bit more than the average player. I do happen to like long campaigns and know exactly what goes into making them successful. Im just as much a factor in that as my players are. So, I dont take the job lightly becasue I dont want to waste anybody's time.

Though, folks certainly shouldn't feel bad if they find out after launching it just wasnt right. Its going to happen and while you can take measures to prevent it, nobody can predict it. The best thing is to be honest and let folks know why its happening.

The long-term years-long campaign is an idealized romantic notion perpetuated by media (stuff like CritRole) and ads (this canned adventure will last many, many levels- think of all the fun times you'll have going from 1-12, or 1-20!).

It certainly exists, I've had a few campaigns that went the distance and they were cool, but more often than not they weren't planned to go for years and honestly it probably would've been just as fun having a series of shorter games that we knew beforehand would be finite.

It can be difficult to keep interest in a campaign that's been going for a year or more. At that point I'm probably running on the fumes of player enthusiasm and wanting to put a bow on it rather than let it fizzle out.

I think the longest interest I kept in a campaign was a West Marches game, where I was running 2/week for 2 years... I was able to be very creative there and the hundred or so adventure locales that I had sprinkled throughout the land (almost all Michael Prescott Trilemma Adventures) were pretty interesting and all had their own little things going on.
Not to mention that in that game, the players were the ones deciding what was important to them... there were some events happening in the background, but they were sharing the load.

 

[MGibster]

What do you do when you're running an adventure or you're early into a campaign and realize you are NOT feeling the game system?

That happened to my group when I ran Fantasy Flight's version of Rogue Trader way back in 2010-11. In this particular case, after a few sessions, the players and I (DM) had a little chat about how much we disliked the system. We ended up deciding to play something else.

Some rule or collection of rules is triggering your "NO FUN" sensor. Or maybe the setting feels wrong - you're in the Middle Ages but your really wanted something more Iron Age. Worse still, the players all seem to be enjoying themselves. It's a tough spot to be in and I've been there a few times - it can be a real crisis at the table.

Right now I'm running D&D 5E (2024) set in Greyhawk and I'm not really feeling the game system all that much. However, I've got a group of players who enthusiastically participate, which, in turn, means I'm willing to overlook my problems with the rules. If I were simply miserable running the game, I would just tell them and we'd play something else.

How do you handle rules or setting discomfort at the table? Am I wrong? Any horror stories? Best practices?

I was running a Cthulhu campaign and the PCs were all students at Miskatonic University. Out of five players, only two of them were interested in playing. One player would just have his character do stupid, disruptive things when he was bored. Another player would deliberately ignore plot hooks. They just weren't interested in playing, so I don't know why they agreed to the game. The situation was untenable, so I ended the campaign early, and we ended up dissolving as a group. Three of those players left and I got four new players in return. Much happier now.

 

[overgeeked]

Mostly the same as you. If there’s a big moment that’s close (say 2-4 sessions), I’ll do what I can to speed things up and get to that moment in 1-2 sessions so we can end on a good story beat. Telling the players what’s up so they can help and know there’s a purpose to skipping ahead. But there’s no point in forcing the game to continue when someone’s not feeling it, especially the referee.

That’s why I think the referee should set up the game they want to run first, then invite players who’re interested in that premise. You’re far more likely to get actual engagement and enjoyment from everyone involved. Compromising endlessly results in no one having fun and games ending.

It’s also why I tend towards open-world sandboxes. If the content is modular and location based rather than an adventure path or story based then it’s a breeze to swap out. Bored with the dungeoncrawl, leave the dungeon. Bored with the court politics, leave the city. Tired of fighting snake-men cults, leave my table.

It also allows players to more easily swap out characters if they’re bored with ’em. An adventuring guild or company rather than trying to force the epic story of these exact PCs.