It's hard being an adult gamer

[Kanegrundar]

Same here. NOthing's worse that going to a game in which the group is full of people that end up being people that you would likely cross the street to avoid. I've played with groups (briefly) that were too weird, too sick, and so on. There's no other feeling worse than showing up to play some D&D and end up smack in the middle of a game that revolves around copius amounts of sex, torture, racsim, and so forth. I simply want to kill some monsters, play a character, and get some XP. I don't want to play in a game that's nothing but wish-fulfillment of a pack of strangers' sick and twisted fetishes...

Kane

 

[PJ-Mason]

I It's a personal quirk, I know, and I could probably force myself past it. I was actually invited to play in game by another guy I know, but I didn't know anyone else in the group. As game time approached, I became really, really ill and had to bow out. I don't know if it was psychosomatic or if I really had some stomach virus, but very soon after I cancelled going, I began to feel better.

And the gamers I meet in my local bookstore have always...and I mean always had a really high creep factor, from really bad hygiene to a complete lack of social skills (an example is a guy who would lick his lips and stare at every woman who walked by the game section. He even told one of the employees "I like your t**s".

Yeah...I'm a lot happier being a hermit.

Have you tried gaming online? I haven't done it myself, but it would be easier to find people that play your style and it can be easier to find people that can fit schedules, considering you have the whole world as your recruiting grounds.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

Have you tried gaming online? I haven't done it myself, but it would be easier to find people that play your style and it can be easier to find people that can fit schedules, considering you have the whole world as your recruiting grounds.

A friend of mine plays in a PbP game, and she's hammering me to join the next one her DM starts. So I'm thinking about it.

As far as games like EQ or WoW go, I have no interest in those at all. Not only would I not pay a subscription fee to play a game, my computer ain't hoss enough to run the software, anyway.

Actually, the very little gaming I've been able to do has left me with a lot of time to just "decompress". I think about games and gaming a lot, but have actually done very little toward building a new setting or fixing things in my current setting. It's been kinda nice to not have to be the one who always comes up with the evening's entertainment for a group of players, and I've come to really enjoy my solitude.

I miss gaming, sure! And I'm planning on returning to the fray in August, one way or another. But it's also nice to just "be" sometimes.

 

[DanielSchenstrom]

The one thing that stood out for me in your first posts were that the players made the time when the game/campaign was new and fresh and after a while they stopped being so eager. That's what I'm like apart from the fact that I would never give up a gaming session even when I'm really really bored. I need variation.
I could never just play or DM a single campaign for more than two months without getting seriously bored. So running two games, or three, each in different games might be a solution. Some of your players might even want to play every week if you can keep it new and exciting.

I've played with a lot of different players and some have dropped out of regular gaming because of jobs, family or school. The remaining players, like me, doesn't have any obligations or just not much of a social life so we can basically game friday-sunday if we wanted to. However I do make an effort to try and include the other players. I'm going to end a campaign I started 10 or so years ago and one of the players that had to drop out of it could only play on weekdays so I just rescheduled that game for the summer when people are on vacation and on summer break when we could all play.

And as for asking the DM when to play the game. It is my experience that many players just assume it's the GM who do all the organization. No need to ask when the next game's gonna be because they assume or know that the GM will ask.

 

[Darmanicus]

I have tried for the last year to run at least a bi-weekly game. So far I'm averaging about 1 game every 2 months. What's worse is that I've formed a new group within the last 6 months trying to get more play time and we still don't play any more than I was.

To top it off, I can't get anyone excited about the game because we don't play enough where we can really develope their characters and get emotionally involved in the campaign. I understand people have real life to deal with, but I always get the feeling that my game must not be important enough to work schedules around like I'm sure they do to play World of Warcraft.

I don't think I'm a boring DM. When people first start playing, they are really into it and we'll play all the time. But then after several sessions the schedules always seem to be once a month or less. It's as if they'll put the game as their first priority for the first few sessions & after that it becomes, "if I don't have anything else going on, I'll play".

Is this a sign that I need to improve my game or is it really just part of being working adults? I'm cool with looking at myself to see if I'm the problem, but "I" think my games do have a lot of flavor and excitement in them. If I was going to blame a session for being dull I would blame all the wasted time that the players spend focusing on rules & battle tactics.

Is it a bad sign also when the DM is always the one asking each week, "Anyone up for a game this weekend"? I would think if players wanted to play, they would be bugging me all the time about when we're going to play next. Or is that the difference of being young vs being adults now?

For what it's worth I'd play in yer game but I haven't the money or holiday allotment to make a bi-weekly trip to the states!!!

Have you spoken to your players about this?

 

[Oryan77]

Have you spoken to your players about this?

Yeah a few times. All but 1 are new to my table. One player says he really enjoys the game. He hasn't been as gung-ho to make the games as before, so I assume he must not be digging the campaign or his PC. I just think it's that the game hasn't become personal to him yet. Which it can't be personal if we're not playing. It's kind of my fault since I dropped them in the middle of a wilderness treck in the module the old group was already playing. We're finally past that point and beginning into the point where it now becomes "their" adventure. I just keep telling them to play so I can make it personal for them.

Another player says the same thing as the last; that he likes my game and my DM'ing style. But it turns out that he's a D&D Modern fan and he got me to make a PC for him to DM in it. I talked to him lastnight and now he's saying that running a Modern game is more important to him than playing in a PS game. So he's trying to convince me to make a set schedule to play in his modern game. Why do I have the feeling he'd be around to run his game every week but yet he can't be around for mine?

I got a new player who's only played in our last game. I think he's more of a casual gamer though, so I don't see him checking in to see if we're playing or not.

My girlfriend is the last player. She's from the old group and really likes her character and my game a lot. That's because she's played in it for a year. If I can just get these other guys to play they will hopefully like it as much as my gf does.

I met these guys from ads online. I stated that I was looking for commited players. The whole reason I posted ads online was because my old group broke up due to R/L jobs. I think I just need to run a game no matter how many people show up. Run 1 shots that day if 1-2 players show. Keep the game running instead of cancelling. That way the game will become personal for those that play it.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Yeah a few times. All but 1 are new to my table. One player says he really enjoys the game. He hasn't been as gung-ho to make the games as before, so I assume he must not be digging the campaign or his PC. I just think it's that the game hasn't become personal to him yet. Which it can't be personal if we're not playing. It's kind of my fault since I dropped them in the middle of a wilderness treck in the module the old group was already playing. We're finally past that point and beginning into the point where it now becomes "their" adventure. I just keep telling them to play so I can make it personal for them.

Another player says the same thing as the last; that he likes my game and my DM'ing style. But it turns out that he's a D&D Modern fan and he got me to make a PC for him to DM in it. I talked to him lastnight and now he's saying that running a Modern game is more important to him than playing in a PS game. So he's trying to convince me to make a set schedule to play in his modern game. Why do I have the feeling he'd be around to run his game every week but yet he can't be around for mine?

I got a new player who's only played in our last game. I think he's more of a casual gamer though, so I don't see him checking in to see if we're playing or not.

My girlfriend is the last player. She's from the old group and really likes her character and my game a lot. That's because she's played in it for a year. If I can just get these other guys to play they will hopefully like it as much as my gf does.

I met these guys from ads online. I stated that I was looking for commited players. The whole reason I posted ads online was because my old group broke up due to R/L jobs. I think I just need to run a game no matter how many people show up. Run 1 shots that day if 1-2 players show. Keep the game running instead of cancelling. That way the game will become personal for those that play it.

Now I understand the root of your problem: Planescape!

Switch to Spelljammer and everyone will attend your game. In fact, you'll have to fight off new players who randomly wander in off the street because they're drawn to the sheer awesomeness of Spelljammer.

Spelljammer: Just. That. Cool.




Seriously, though, I think you have the right idea. The game should go on regardless of how many players show up. I'd probably run the campaign rather than one-shots, and just have an ongoing deus ex machina to explain the absence of the PCs of absent players. I mean a literal divine machine, inscrutable and everpresent.

Or play one-shots.

Of Spelljammer.

Because...

Well, you know the rest.

 

[PJ-Mason]

As far as games like EQ or WoW go, I have no interest in those at all. Not only would I not pay a subscription fee to play a game, my computer ain't hoss enough to run the software, anyway.

I miss gaming, sure! And I'm planning on returning to the fray in August, one way or another. But it's also nice to just "be" sometimes.

I'm with you there. I'm not much for the pay monthly games. I have a friend online who has been tryng to get me to play a chat room type game for a while. It just seems so different than the face-to-face i am used to after all these years, so i've been hesitant to say yes.

I get the decompression urge as well. I've taken a break from rpging more than once over the years.

 

[TerraDave]

-I, and my group, are thirtysomething adult gamers

-we try to play every two weeks, which means every three weeks

-scheduling is always involved, but doable

-we rotate where we play to ease commute times

-we play on Saturday during the day. Leaves weekend nights and a full day Sunday free

-like others, we use a message board between sessions to maintain momentum and take care of downtime stuff

-I also don't hold back on the XP and generally try to push things along more then in past games, where we had more time and could take a more leisurely pace

-We are having a great game, but have also played in the past and are good freinds.

If the real problem is scheduling, that is life. You have to try to think how you can keep things interesting given their will be long break points.

If it is a lack of enthusiam, then it may not be worth it. You are an adult, you have a life, and I have never seen any point in playing with people who don't really want to be there. Especially for a role playing game (and an involved one like 3.5 D&D), to work you have to get into it.

I should note, that someone can still be my freind, it is not personal. But if I have to really badger them to play, it is probably not worth it for either party.

 

[Hammerforge]

I have tried for the last year to run at least a bi-weekly game. So far I'm averaging about 1 game every 2 months. What's worse is that I've formed a new group within the last 6 months trying to get more play time and we still don't play any more than I was.[/quote\

Scheduling 4 or 5 adults -- especially adults who are married -- can give new meaning to the word "confusion." I GM a game that meets about once every 4 or 5 weeks because of certain adults in the group who have marital and other commitments. Being a single guy, this frustrates me, even though I understand and accept it.

Solution? Form a new gaming group consisting of only singles. ;-)

Seriously, though, there is some truth to that. As a single guy I have found that I have every Friday and Saturday free for gaming; there is rarely a weekend that I cannot game. Another single guy in my group has pretty much the same amount of spare time. The others, however, are married, some with children, and that commitment naturally supercedes gaming. So, even though I say it kind of as a joke, I mean it seriously to a certain degree; I have seriously given thought to including only singles for my next gaming group, whenever that might happen.