Players: it's your responsibility to carry a story.

[SteveC]

Players, it is your responsibility to communicate productively with the GM to make the game more fun at the time -- not just to complain after the fact to strangers on the Internet.


I'm betting it was you who decided how you spent that time, with 479 chances not to spend another minute the same way.

Shows what you know: it's part of my work release program to play in this game!

I recall a fellow who somehow got it into his head that it might be necessary to play out a tedious retreat across the Russian steppes in months of real time. I don't recall the reasoning, which was just bizarre to me anyhow.

I do recall that the reason I learned of this was that the referee asked online for advice about how to avoid a boring game.

I do not think I have ever met a GM who wanted to bore players.
I would be astounded if a GM responded to a player saying, "Please, can we gloss over details of encounters along the way, and cut to arriving at our destination?" by refusing the request -- unless the other players wanted to carry on.

I did talk with him about it, after the session was over. It's always my opinion that it's best to work on issues like this outside of the game proper. Especially since we're all friends who work in the same environment. Whenever issues like this come up on ENWorld I will consistently argue that the solution to the problem is good communication, and if things can't be worked out, going one's separate ways.

And I did make a few comments during play: we were forced to spend quite a bit of time provisioning and making preparations for the trip itself, and after about 20 minutes of that I did go into my "can we hurry this up mode." We did.

Moreover, I simply cannot see how your one-paragraph summary can be the whole story.

I would be incredibly surprised if anyone can summarize a four-hour game session in one paragraph and include all of the details. What could possibly have led you to have that expectation?

1." Along the way you come across some farmers transporting the harvest to Winterhaven, who tell you that the road ahead is clear. "

2. "One night you hear the howling of wolves, but even the keen-eyes of the eleven ranger are unable to detect any sign of them."

Even if it took the GM more than 30 seconds to say those things, there is no way it took four hours. If it took four hours and your "game" consisted of nothing but listening to the GM, then you have an even bigger problem.

No, I will bet that you players actually chose something other than, "We'll be on our way, then." You engaged in activities, and those took up time.

We did. We attempted to roleplay with the farmers, but soon found they had nothing to say. They were simply color text. We attempted to investigate the sounds of the wolves, but couldn't find the source. In effect it was more color text.

I admit that I do loves me some roleplay. I have no problem with an entire session that's nothing but roleplaying with interesting characters. That did not happen.

The other thing we did was roll a lot of perception, nature and endurance checks. The GM made a lot of die rolls behind the screen: this was against his weather and encounter system for the area. We also roleplayed the journey in a highly detailed manner. I could tell you about the weather at each point along the way, how we broke for lunch and the order of watches we used for lunch. I'm not kidding, it was on that level.

In talking to the GM afterwards, he said that he wanted the journey to take the entire session so that it was realistic and his sandbox campaign has many, many tables for possible encounters in the area. Apparently we almost came upon the signs of an adult green dragon that lives in the area. Almost is the operative word, there.

So I don't know what to tell you beyond that, other than after our talk I've decided not to be back until the group rotates GMs. I take my own advice that no gaming is better than bad gaming.

And I'm not trying to universally say this game was bad. I am sure someone who was really into simulating a gaming environment in a realistic manner could have enjoyed this game. My GM pointed out that it is much more realistic to have the game sometimes have nothing happen than to always have danger for every trip the group makes. How would a normal person, like those farmers, make a regular trip to market if you had dangerous encounters every time you left town?

For me, that play style doesn't work, so I bowed out. I think the session had some relevance to this thread, which is why I posted about it.

--Steve

 

[Ariosto]

So what? Life's too short to stay with a group where your playstyles don't match.

Are you seriously under the misapprehension that I said anything to the contrary?

 

[Ariosto]

Shows what you know: it's part of my work release program to play in this game!

I call that cruel and unusual!

I did talk with him about it, after the session was over. It's always my opinion that it's best to work on issues like this outside of the game proper.

So those were four hours of life that you chose to spend as is best in your opinion.

I would be incredibly surprised if anyone can summarize a four-hour game session in one paragraph and include all of the details. What could possibly have led you to have that expectation?

I did not write "all the details". I wrote "the whole story". I meant what you suggested in your statement.

The last session we spent four hours covering a four day journey to a nearby village that could have been summarized by...

I agree that it ought to have been handled like that. I agree that the GM had a very poor estimate of how fun the planned "adventure" would be.

I do not agree that you fulfilled your responsibility as a fellow participant in that team effort.

I also think there are many people who enjoy a spot of color here and there that is not meant to invoke a Pavlovian response, and many scenarios and GMs catering to us. If a cigar simply cannot ever be just a cigar to you, then that is something you should disclose before you even get into a game.

And I'm not trying to universally say this game was bad.

For not trying, you certainly did a good job. It's beside my point, anyhow.

For me, that play style doesn't work, so I bowed out. I think the session had some relevance to this thread, which is why I posted about it.

I think it has some relevance. I think the take-home lesson is what I put in bold at the top of my response. (Yes, your advice to GMs is also good, except as you take it to the extreme needed to accommodate your proclivity.)



If I am not for myself, who is for me? When I am for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
-- Hillel

 

[Lanefan]

This comes from a game that I've been playing in for the last few weeks, [...]
The last session we spent four hours covering a four day journey to a nearby village [...]

"The last few weeks" indicates this is either a new campaign or that you are a new player in an existing one. Either way, could it be that the DM let the journey drag in order to allow some character interaction...to let you lot get to know each other? Or, perhaps to size the group up - see how they react to things and-or interact with NPCs?

And before anyone jumps all over me about using the word "plot" above, all I mean with that is that the situation is evolving. That relationship map that I talked of up thread should be called into play. Someone should be trying to forward their agenda. There is no predetermined outcome, but someone should be trying something in an effort to change the dynamic state that is the situation. The relationship map is the GMs crib sheet for figuring out on the fly who might want to try something that would affect the PCs/NPCs. Use it.

Has it occurred to you that people might be simply enjoying being *in* the dynamic state that is the situation, just the way it is?

Yes, now and then you need to jump-start things...but not all the time. There's nothing worse as a player than to feel you're constantly being pushed along.

Lanefan

 

[Plane Sailing]

Aristo - stop trying to make this thread adversarial rather than conversational or you're getting threadbanned.

 

[Hussar]

I presume that what you mean is that
(A) you objected

Yes, I objected. Fairly strenuously.

and
(B) the other players agreed with you

Well, since the other players were simply watching me roleplay with the DM, since their characters weren't actually involved at the time, I really don't know if they agreed or not.

and
(C) the DM insisted that was the only way to hire a group of men at arms
and

I'm not sure what this means. I said I was hiring men at arms. I asked how I would do that in the DM's game world and he told me how it was done. I believe it was something to the effect of heading down to the mercenary guild hall and rounding up some people.

(D) you chose to go along with that.

If you neglected (A), or if (B) was false, then I am not astounded.

What choice did I have? "I want to hire a dozen spear chuckers to help us take down the grell." "Here's what you have to do..."

My choices at that point became either do what the DM said, or walk. Eventually I chose to walk.

I know it's easier to believe that DM's are infallible beings gracing poor players with the gift of their wisdom, but, Sturgeon's Law applies to DM's as much as it applies to anything. Most DM's are not as good as they think they are (and that likely includes myself). Having played with some shockingly piss poor DM's over the years, that's not a big surprise to me.

Like I said, if you've never had the misfortune of running into this kind of DM, then you're very lucky. I've smacked into it more than once. Heck, I probably WAS this kind of DM once upon a time before I smartened up. I don't think I do this to my players anymore, you'd have to ask them.

~ So I warn Aristo and you don't take the hint and decide to continue a conflict? you're out of the thread: Admin ~

 

[Nameless1]

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Hussar again.

Most DM's are not as good as they think they are (and that likely includes myself). Having played with some shockingly piss poor DM's over the years, that's not a big surprise to me.

This is most assuredly true. It is OK though. No one should be held to the hypothetically perfect standard. The only time it becomes not OK is when said GMs decide that they know better, and refuse to learn how to be better. This is what Enworld is for though, right?

 

[Ariosto]

I know it's easier to believe that DM's are infallible beings gracing poor players with the gift of their wisdom...

Hussar, is it really so much easier for you to hit people with such hyperbole? It is easier to make -- or to argue against -- a point by actually addressing that point. What you very often do instead is what you have done here. Instead of addressing a statement, you misrepresent it.

The statement of mine that you quoted and took issue with very specifically concerned (A) and (B). You specifically did not address either (A) or (B).

I have written nothing about "infallible beings". When you behave like that, it looks like an attempt to be insulting. It does nothing but distract and detract from whatever of actual relevance you may have to say.

 

[TarionzCousin]

 

[S'mon]

I get the feeling this thread may have reached the end of its natural life.