My GM is reasonable because my peer group is reasonable.

As a comment on the recent spat of "Evil GM" threads, allow me to explore possible roots of this issue.

When a group of people sit down to play a role playing game, a decision is made. Someone from the group will be running the game. Who will that be.

Now if you are like me, you have a lot of very reasonable, intelligent, people to choose from. Sure, you may have a friend or two who is kind of wacky that you like to game with for comic effect, but you aren't letting that guy run the show.

Not with so many other, more reasonable choices.

Similarly, when you want to run as a GM, if you have a large group of very reasonable people in your life, it is actually a challenge to decide who you will invite, and who will be out of this game, either for logisitical purposes or just philosophical disagreement on game play.

So, you know, if you can't have this happen...well...I'll just go ahead and say it. Like attracts like.

So if you are having problems at your table...maybe start with the person in the mirror. You picked these friends, you decided to sit down at this table, you decided to invite these people, you decided to put that GM in charge.

Just sayin'

The single hardest thing for me as a GM is deciding who will be in my group. This is because of exactly what you were saying; there are so many reasonable people in my life. Some of which are fine, but they don't fit my personalty as a GM. I can have a perfectly fine relationship with them away from the table, but once the dice are rolled, something just doesn't mesh.

And yes, like attracts like. For example, I've never had a player or GM that forces uncomfortable situations. Mostly because my state gaming community is fairly no-nonsense as far as playing the game goes (Arizona, for those wondering).

The single hardest thing for me as a GM is deciding who will be in my group. This is because of exactly what you were saying; there are so many reasonable people in my life. Some of which are fine, but they don't fit my personalty as a GM. I can have a perfectly fine relationship with them away from the table, but once the dice are rolled, something just doesn't mesh.

And yes, like attracts like. For example, I've never had a player or GM that forces uncomfortable situations. Mostly because my state gaming community is fairly no-nonsense as far as playing the game goes (Arizona, for those wondering).

When I started gaming regularly I was brought into a 6 person group that had known each other since High School, but a couple people moved away.

That group went from 6 to a pool of 10 in the core group, with each person in the group having side games they were in that didn't involve anyone from the group.

And that was without any of us going on messageboards, going to FLGS, anything like that. The original group that met in High School were at a High School out in the middle of nowhere and some of them just happened to all move down near the same city. The high school group, I'm told, was about 10 people.

So it always blows my mind to read the "horror" stories. Why would you play there if you didn't want to be part of that game, and why did the GM invite you if you were going to be so disruptive...

But then again if you are a controlling GM and a distruptive player, beggers can't be choosers I guess.

Another point in favor of moving to Arizona. :)

The single hardest thing for me as a GM is deciding who will be in my group. This is because of exactly what you were saying; there are so many reasonable people in my life. Some of which are fine, but they don't fit my personalty as a GM. I can have a perfectly fine relationship with them away from the table, but once the dice are rolled, something just doesn't mesh.

The difficult part is determining in advance if the person you're good with out of game is going to be good in-game, and if they turn out bad or not meshing well how do you break it to them without damaging your friendship. Currently a problem I'm going through with one of my current group.

And yes, like attracts like. For example, I've never had a player or GM that forces uncomfortable situations. Mostly because my state gaming community is fairly no-nonsense as far as playing the game goes (Arizona, for those wondering).

+1 for AZ =) Met my old gaming group while going to school in Tempe. Half of them I'm still in contact with, one is now my sister-in-law, and she and my brother still live out there and are part of my current skype/maptool group.

@Orthos - It isn't that difficult to determine that in my experience. I have a good number of friends and aquaintances who game that I don't game with because we aren't compatible gamers.

How do I know?

I asked them about how and what they play and I found out how they gamed before I invited them to game with us.

So, you know, if you can't have this happen...well...I'll just go ahead and say it. Like attracts like.

So if you are having problems at your table...maybe start with the person in the mirror. You picked these friends, you decided to sit down at this table, you decided to invite these people, you decided to put that GM in charge.

Just sayin'

Amen.

I see these crazy threads all the time, whether about "dick GMs" or "bad players"... I've never met either except in passing - and there's a reason why it was in passing. If someone's a dick GM or player, it's probably fair to say they're just a dick. I wouldn't stand in a pub and talk to someone like that for 5 minutes - why would I engage in one of my favourite, most creative/brain nourishing activities for hours at a time with someone that wasn't "All for one, and one for all!" like my local group is?

Sorry, but when I read these threads or comments, I instantly assume exactly what ciretose is pleasantly hinting at: your GM/player may be a dick, but it seems you're almost certainly one. Or, you're willing to hang out with personality types that I actively avoid, while being unwilling to refrain from b+@*$ing about them on Internet fora.

No thanks. If none of my nearby reasonable, broad-minded, accepting, intelligent and creative friends were into tabletop RPGs, I'd just play more PbPs with those kinds of people here at Paizo.com.

I just found out that two of my players may be moving away in the coming year or so. My gaming group as of right now is filled with 5 people who's company I enjoy as gamers and as people very much. They are BY FAR one of the best groups I've had the pleasure of running games for.

No divas, no spotlight hogs, no hygene issues, no power-gamers, no obnoxious rules lawyers. Just the most helpful, considerate, fun group I've had in a long time.

I fell ass-backward into the core group when their regular GM had to bow out. I took over the group 4 years ago and haven't looked back since.

I know eventually I'm going to have to replace the departing players and I'm not looking forward to it because there are many more awful, selfish, powergaming, obnoxious players out there and I dont want anything to do with them.

UGH.

I just found out that two of my players may be moving away in the coming year or so. My gaming group as of right now is filled with 5 people who's company I enjoy as gamers and as people very much. They are BY FAR one of the best groups I've had the pleasure of running games for.

No divas, no spotlight hogs, no hygene issues, no power-gamers, no obnoxious rules lawyers. Just the most helpful, considerate, fun group I've had in a long time.

I fell ass-backward into the core group when their regular GM had to bow out. I took over the group 4 years ago and haven't looked back since.

I know eventually I'm going to have to replace the departing players and I'm not looking forward to it because there are many more awful, selfish, powergaming, obnoxious players out there and I dont want anything to do with them.

UGH.

Maybe we can come up with a screening tool. Match.com for gamers :)

We are not all like you ciretose.

I've had to build my peer group from whoever I found in the gaming store.

Multiple times.

I've had to build my peer group from whoever I found in the gaming store.

Multiple times.

Yeah, but you move around a lot.

Edit: And even then, I bet you were a selective as possible.

We are not all like you ciretose.

Which is a shame, because I am awesome :)

And even then, I bet you were a selective as possible.

Looking at my current group, I can't say that I have been. But that is the price of running for whoever shows up at the shop.

I guess the Austin group was pretty selective, in that none of them were bad eggs when we first started. The first Austin group was a non-starter.

ShinHakkaider wrote:

I just found out that two of my players may be moving away in the coming year or so. My gaming group as of right now is filled with 5 people who's company I enjoy as gamers and as people very much. They are BY FAR one of the best groups I've had the pleasure of running games for.

No divas, no spotlight hogs, no hygene issues, no power-gamers, no obnoxious rules lawyers. Just the most helpful, considerate, fun group I've had in a long time.

I fell ass-backward into the core group when their regular GM had to bow out. I took over the group 4 years ago and haven't looked back since.

I know eventually I'm going to have to replace the departing players and I'm not looking forward to it because there are many more awful, selfish, powergaming, obnoxious players out there and I dont want anything to do with them.

UGH.

Maybe we can come up with a screening tool. Match.com for gamers :)

LOL. Even if we could do that I've heard some pretty interesting (ie HORRIBLE) stories of online dating profiles that just went awry.

If gamers/players can game a system like 3.5 and Pathfinder they could definitely game the hell out of a screening application.

ciretose wrote:

And even then, I bet you were a selective as possible.

Looking at my current group, I can't say that I have been. But that is the price of running for whoever shows up at the shop.

I guess the Austin group was pretty selective, in that none of them were bad eggs when we first started. The first Austin group was a non-starter.

You are running some PFS though, right? That narrows your ability to select quite a bit I would assume (although the rules are fairly rigid I would also presume)

LOL. Even if we could do that I've heard some pretty interesting (ie HORRIBLE) stories of online dating profiles that just went awry.

If gamers/players can game a system like 3.5 and Pathfinder they could definitely game the hell out of a screening application.

But I think they would fully report their style of play questions, because those would be "The" way to play.

The core of my gaming group is folks who have been gaming with each other for about 10 years. We really get each others' preferences and play styles. Other players have come and gone. We are now very protective of our core groups and selective about who we invite. It only takes 1 bad player to ruin the game for everyone.

We have a problem that our group is tooo big. We are around 9 players, with just one person who is THAT guy, but he is younger than the rest of us and it feels like an age thing. We have four people who can run a game and me who likes to GM. We just discussed breaking the group in half because my high level pathfinder game, while fun, takes a LONG time to run. Also, we are feeling like jerks having to say no to other people to join, especially when we have 5 people who can run a game.

I hope we survive the split, but other than that this group has been together for four years.

*applauds the reasonable responses in this thread*

I'm that sister-in-law Orthos mentioned. Proudly born, raised, and still living in AZ, though no longer in the Phoenix Metro area.

There are people in any peer group that can cause tension, strife, discord, etc. Some people actually thrive in those types of social situations. It is always your choice who you associate with. If your peer group is unacceptable, it's time to reflect on what choices have brought you to this situation. If it is truly something beyond your control, then it is time to do the responsible, adult thing and remove yourself from the situation.

Easier said then done, I know. However, I find it is better to not game at all than to game with a group I dislike or conflict with.

Easier said then done, I know. However, I find it is better to not game at all than to game with a group I dislike or conflict with.

Yup this part especially.

I love my hobby. Especially the good parts. The bad parts I want nothing to do with and will just as soon as not game than to game with people who are going to make the experience less than pleasant.

We have a problem that our group is tooo big. We are around 9 players, with just one person who is THAT guy, but he is younger than the rest of us and it feels like an age thing. We have four people who can run a game and me who likes to GM. We just discussed breaking the group in half because my high level pathfinder game, while fun, takes a LONG time to run. Also, we are feeling like jerks having to say no to other people to join, especially when we have 5 people who can run a game.

I hope we survive the split, but other than that this group has been together for four years.

Bro you can split the group and still game together. I had a GM and 7 players for my STAP campaign and it's just too much. We split the group into two groups of 5 players + GM, with overlap between the groups for the individuals who want to make the commitment to play every Friday instead of every other Friday, and it's worked out great. Every so often, we'll have a one-off for the whole group, but since that's not regular, it's much easier on whoever GMs it than an every week large party. Each group is running through an AP at about the same pace. When we finish APs, we change GMs for the next pair of APs.

Old Group: CB (GM), HB, MW, AT, DN, TK, JK, JO
New Group 1 (1st/3rd Fridays): CB (GM), AT, HB, MW, DN, JO
New Group 2 (2nd/4th Fridays): AT (GM), CB, HB, MW, TK, JK

However, I find it is better to not game at all than to game with a group I dislike or conflict with.

This brought back some memories. When I first went off to college I found myself feeling like a junkie jonzing for their next fix. I went a couple months without finding a group. Then I connected with a few folks. At that point I took whatever I could get. I played in a couple of different groups over the next year. In that year I saw a fist fight break out between two players. I saw a GM assign characters they had created with the stated desire for us to help her with her book she was doing. I could go on, but the bottom line was; after a year I ended up realizing that what ebon_fyre says wrote is 100% right. I went more than a year and a half without playing and I was better off than having to waste my time with groups that were just forced to be together because “We just gotta play”.

One of the players in our regular group was in a side game that was about to expand out to a new GM. The GM emailed her what seemed like a 20 page manifesto on how to create a character.

She declined that invitation.

Guy Kilmore wrote:

We have a problem that our group is tooo big. We are around 9 players, with just one person who is THAT guy, but he is younger than the rest of us and it feels like an age thing. We have four people who can run a game and me who likes to GM. We just discussed breaking the group in half because my high level pathfinder game, while fun, takes a LONG time to run. Also, we are feeling like jerks having to say no to other people to join, especially when we have 5 people who can run a game.

I hope we survive the split, but other than that this group has been together for four years.

Bro you can split the group and still game together. I had a GM and 7 players for my STAP campaign and it's just too much. We split the group into two groups of 5 players + GM, with overlap between the groups for the individuals who want to make the commitment to play every Friday instead of every other Friday, and it's worked out great. Every so often, we'll have a one-off for the whole group, but since that's not regular, it's much easier on whoever GMs it than an every week large party. Each group is running through an AP at about the same pace. When we finish APs, we change GMs for the next pair of APs.

Old Group: CB (GM), HB, MW, AT, DN, TK, JK, JO
New Group 1 (1st/3rd Fridays): CB (GM), AT, HB, MW, DN, JO
New Group 2 (2nd/4th Fridays): AT (GM), CB, HB, MW, TK, JK

Thank you for that break down. I will present that. There is a second part I did not get into, typing in haste, and that is geography. We are getting spread-out and there is a geographical split forming. (Two hour drives for some people. Yech)

I was planning on purposing someone run a campaign straight for a couple of months. I DMed straight for three years every other Friday and it would have been nice to cycle more.

I actually ended up in a group with a difficult player because everyone else was so reasonable.

He was incredibly self-conscious and had low self-esteem. This led to him trying to 'win' at the gaming table.

I even got him to GM, he killed my characters like they were going out of fashion and had a super-powered GM-PC. The full moan-out payload!

Why tolerate this? Because we could see it came from low self-esteem and it allowed him to step back and see how his competitiveness actually damaged his self-regard in a vicious cycle. GMing for three sessions made him a better player and better company at the game table.

Obviously there was a lot more to his psyche than we could do anything about but the game group became a place where he could relax and become less self-conscious.

However, this only worked because:
1. Everyone else was so reasonable.
2. He was not deliberately antagonistic.
3. His behaviour was so transparent.

My party has many years together. We where 4 persons, now 5, and we never have problems; we know each other too much for that.
Not everyone can go each time we play, so we have some campaigns running with 4 persons, each with a possible player composition, and one more with all of us. I'm always present; we play on my house.
The DM is rotative. Each campaign has a different one between 3 of us that like to do it.
We really like that way to play, the only problem is that with so many open campaigns, each one progress a bit slowly, but that seems an acceptable price.

I've been very lucky to have been in several very nice gaming groups over the last 10 years, including my two current groups I play in. Over the years we've had our issues, but usually we can talk them out. Sometimes we have to recognize things like player A and player B are both nice people but should not be at a table together because of the way their play styles clash--but the nice thing is both player A and player B recognize and respect this.

I've had past bad experiences with some power hungry GMs and whiny players, but always largely non-insurmountable issues and usually temporary. When I think of the "problem player" and think "oh god these people will badger me" -- I realized it's actually one player that's pulled a lot of that nonsense, and I haven't asked him to join a group in years (last game I invited him to was in 3.5 and I stipulated "core only" and he refused to play since he couldn't put together the insane broken combos he liked to play).

It is frustrating when you are in a group with difficult to deal with, but experience has told me time and time and time again that you talk it out, and then if that doesn't work, you leave the group. It's hard, because no one wants to give up an opportunity to play, but in the end I've always found better groups to play with and was MUCH better off for it. Sometimes it takes time to find a new group, but part of the hard lesson to learn is it's better to wait till the right opportunity rises than make do in a situation where you're miserable (true of so many things in life).

When I was younger, one of the biggest problems I had was finding people to commit to a game. People would very enthusiastically sign up and then wouldn't show--with little notice or warning. But a) those people stopped being asked to join groups, and b) as I got older, folks got better at recognizing what commitments they could and couldn't keep.

I actually ended up in a group with a difficult player because everyone else was so reasonable.

He was incredibly self-conscious and had low self-esteem. This led to him trying to 'win' at the gaming table.

I even got him to GM, he killed my characters like they were going out of fashion and had a super-powered GM-PC. The full moan-out payload!

Why tolerate this? Because we could see it came from low self-esteem and it allowed him to step back and see how his competitiveness actually damaged his self-regard in a vicious cycle. GMing for three sessions made him a better player and better company at the game table.

Obviously there was a lot more to his psyche than we could do anything about but the game group became a place where he could relax and become less self-conscious.

However, this only worked because:
1. Everyone else was so reasonable.
2. He was not deliberately antagonistic.
3. His behaviour was so transparent.

I think this is a "problem" in gaming circles, as well as other circles where "outcasts" come together. People who have been "outcast" are loathe to say someone can't be part of their group, because they don't want to be that person who does what was done to them.

I get the logic, I don't subscribe to it. I've seen it cause major drama and problems in peoples lives to many times, and I think it quite often becomes more enabling than theraphutic.

I actually removed myself from an entire group of people because they were too accepting. The context was (and this will seem extreme, but I assure you it is a true story) that one of the people in the group was arrested for child pornography, both possession and a request for a custom made one.

And a large portion of the the group stood by him, saying a friend in need, yadda, yadda...

And I got the hell away from them.

I don't think anyone else in the group was a pedophile or anything, but in hindsight, while most of the people in the group were really cool, quite a few of them were quite annoying and/or quite sketchy. People who would only be accepted by people offering unconditional acceptance.

It was a moment where I realized exclusivity in friend selection maybe cruel, but it is also how you avoid drama. And avoiding drama is more or less job one in my life at this point.

I personally would have forgotten to invite him. But no judgement for charity.

As a comment on the recent spat of "Evil GM" threads, allow me to explore possible roots of this issue.

When a group of people sit down to play a role playing game, a decision is made. Someone from the group will be running the game. Who will that be.

Now if you are like me, you have a lot of very reasonable, intelligent, people to choose from. Sure, you may have a friend or two who is kind of wacky that you like to game with for comic effect, but you aren't letting that guy run the show.

Not with so many other, more reasonable choices.

Similarly, when you want to run as a GM, if you have a large group of very reasonable people in your life, it is actually a challenge to decide who you will invite, and who will be out of this game, either for logisitical purposes or just philosophical disagreement on game play.

So, you know, if you can't have this happen...well...I'll just go ahead and say it. Like attracts like.

So if you are having problems at your table...maybe start with the person in the mirror. You picked these friends, you decided to sit down at this table, you decided to invite these people, you decided to put that GM in charge.

Just sayin'

You make it sound so very simple, when usually it's much more complicated.

Had I not read your post more carefully, I would have waved it off as mere "pro-DM" propaganda.

Either way, the post you replied to here earlier just proved my point. Things are not as simple as the OP implied.

Actually it was quite simple. I never would have gamed with the sketchy people, even if I was part of the peer group.

You pick who you sit at a table with. If you pick jerks, that is your fault. If you can only choose from jerks...well...I'm just sayin'...

And more to the point, I don't hang out with those sketchy people anymore, and I actually discovered that when I stopped hanging out with them, I made more friends because I wasn't associated with them anymore.

Then I guess my DM was the sketchy one, since we walked off on him.

I still refuse to agree with what amounts more or less to blaming the victim.

Then I guess my DM was the sketchy one, since we walked off on him.

I still refuse to agree with what amounts more or less to blaming the victim.

You decided to sit down at that GM's table in the first place. There were 5 of you, you picked him to run it.

Having a bad role playing game experience doesn't make you a victim. If you feel victimized because the GM didn't agree with you, that is illustrative...

Hi All,

I am one of those GMs that went on a rant in that other thread. I administered some tough love in the other thread because a GM was complaining about other GMs playstyles and storytelling techniques.
I allowed it to get under my skin, and I basically told him to stop whining and either go all-in on GM'ing games or throw in the towel and just play. This I do not regret in the slightest.

I do regret a few things though. I spoke of only the problem players that I have encountered over my three decades of GM'ing, and not of the truly exceptional ones. I would like to give them their due here if I may.

James - My best friend since 1991, James is almost always the voice of logic (sometimes quite spurious) amongst my players. His common sense is a great tool for any group of players to sharpen themselves against. Thanks Man, these games would only be 80% as fun without you, tops.

Bubba - A close friend of mine since High School, Bubba is loud and sometimes abrasive, but posesses an excellent (if twisted) imagination. He has always brought more to the table than just his voice, He is an excellent sounding board for plot ideas and twists.

Dave - Quiet, level-headed and observant is best used to describe my next player. Not a wallflower, but a player who seems to prefer support roles, Dave is attentive to detail and often catches the subtleties that the others miss. It would be a whole different group without my quietest and most observant player.

Josh - My Stepson and also my first World of Warcrafter, Josh is a recent addition to the ranks of unrepentant geekdom, but has an amazing eye for game mechanics and is well on his way towards becoming a first-time GM. Josh embodies every hope I have for this hobby. A whole new generation of players who want what only pen-and-paper RPG's can bring them, and who are willing to flesh it out for themselves if need be.

Jacob - An afghanistan war vet, he is young at heart, mischevious and very much his Fathers (Bubba's) son. Jacob is a player of many years and, despite his youth, brings much to the table.

Alisha - My newest player is a natural thespian. She showed up for my first Skull & Shackles session in full pirate costume! She is my youngest, and possibly most imaginative player, another child of Warcraft, she is here for the roleplay and always brings a fresh perspective to the table.

I just wanted to thank you all for helping me tell some of the best stories I have ever told. They are as much yours as they are mine.

Sincerely,
Weslocke of Phazdaliom

I've played with the same group of people for over 25 years. Some have moved on, others no longer have time for it, but I'm never without enough players to make an evening fun.

Hi All,

I am one of those GMs that went on a rant in that other thread. I administered some tough love in the other thread because a GM was complaining about other GMs playstyles and storytelling techniques.
I allowed it to get under my skin, and I basically told him to stop whining and either go all-in on GM'ing games or throw in the towel and just play. This I do not regret in the slightest.

Nor should you, IMHO.

No one is served trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. And what is rude is not the group who asks the one person to get in line so everyone can enjoy themselves, but the one person who refuses to either do so or move on to a group that better fits them.

Icyshadow wrote:

Then I guess my DM was the sketchy one, since we walked off on him.

I still refuse to agree with what amounts more or less to blaming the victim.

You decided to sit down at that GM's table in the first place. There were 5 of you, you picked him to run it.

Having a bad role playing game experience doesn't make you a victim. If you feel victimized because the GM didn't agree with you, that is illustrative...

Nice strawman there, but ineffective. That makes as much sense as me saying it's your own fault when a random guy punches you in the face on the street.

ciretose wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Then I guess my DM was the sketchy one, since we walked off on him.

I still refuse to agree with what amounts more or less to blaming the victim.

You decided to sit down at that GM's table in the first place. There were 5 of you, you picked him to run it.

Having a bad role playing game experience doesn't make you a victim. If you feel victimized because the GM didn't agree with you, that is illustrative...

Nice strawman there, but ineffective. That makes as much sense as me saying it's your own fault when a random guy punches you in the face on the street.

Why are you choosing random people to play with? If you do, you have no one to blame about what you get but yourself.

Icyshadow wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Then I guess my DM was the sketchy one, since we walked off on him.

I still refuse to agree with what amounts more or less to blaming the victim.

You decided to sit down at that GM's table in the first place. There were 5 of you, you picked him to run it.

Having a bad role playing game experience doesn't make you a victim. If you feel victimized because the GM didn't agree with you, that is illustrative...

Nice strawman there, but ineffective. That makes as much sense as me saying it's your own fault when a random guy punches you in the face on the street.

Why are you choosing random people to play with? If you do, you have no one to blame about what you get but yourself.

Everyone seems to be full of straw here today.

No, I played with my friends. I did not expect one to be a control freak when he gets on the DM seat.

Caineach wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Then I guess my DM was the sketchy one, since we walked off on him.

I still refuse to agree with what amounts more or less to blaming the victim.

You decided to sit down at that GM's table in the first place. There were 5 of you, you picked him to run it.

Having a bad role playing game experience doesn't make you a victim. If you feel victimized because the GM didn't agree with you, that is illustrative...

Nice strawman there, but ineffective. That makes as much sense as me saying it's your own fault when a random guy punches you in the face on the street.

Why are you choosing random people to play with? If you do, you have no one to blame about what you get but yourself.

Everyone seems to be full of straw here today.

No, I played with my friends. I did not expect one to be a control freak when he gets on the DM seat.

And if you sit down to play a second game with him, that is you making a choice with knowledge. If you refuse to play a second game with him, or talk to him about the problems, he learns. If its just that your styles don't match, you don't play in his games.

Why are you choosing random people to play with? If you do, you have no one to blame about what you get but yourself.

I have a very good circle of friends. I've known them for years. They've helped me through some very tough spots, as I've helped more than a few of them. I know I can count on them, and we all have things in common with each other.

Unfortunately, one thing that we don't have in common is role playing games. Sad to say, but as great as my friends just aren't into it. So when I decided to get back into D&D after a 10 year absence, I had to go to my FLGS for games.

The group I'm in is pretty fun, and seems like a levelheaded lot. But I haven't known them for very long. They're nearly complete strangers that I met through the game shop. I was actually quite lucky to meet them, because the gaming community in my town is remarkably small for its size.

I partially agree with the OP: if you're in a group and you notice a few problems, it's your decision on whether you stay. Sometimes it's just better to leave, even if it means you don't get to game. Sometimes we can be so desperate for games that we're willing to put up with a little bit of crap. I think of a lot of problems result because people think they'd be having a lot less fun if they're not in a group, rather than filling that time with other fun things.

I partially agree... but I'm also taken aback by the attitude of the OP and some of the posters (see the quoted text) of this thread. It's wonderful that you happen to live in an area with a strong role-playing community, or that you've been playing for so long that you've developed a large social network that you can use to fill your game tables. It's wonderful that there are those within the role-playing community who AREN'T from the socially inexperienced side of society. More power to you, and I'm happy things are working out for you.

But to see comments that essentially boil down to "why are you choosing to game with random people?" (Implied: what's wrong with you that your friends won't play with you?) Or "well if you don't have a large pool of well-balanced people to draw from for your games... like attracts like."

So... I'm a bad person because I don't know many gamers? I am somehow mentally imbalanced because I choose to play with people who I haven't been playing with since high school?

It's fantastic that you know so many levelheaded people. But the fact that many of my longstanding friends do not share this particular interest of mine does not make me unbalanced or somehow lesser than you. And comments like the first post in this thread, and the quoted text above, seem rather condescending.

Having said that, and having read at least one of those DM horror story threads, I DO think that the OP has a valid point. I also think that it's a good reminder for people to remember that they DO have the power to walk away from bad tables. But creating a thread so that you make a general declaration to the forums that boils down to "shame on you for not being in my situation" or "if you'd all just gamed like I did then you wouldn't have any problems"?

That's an awfully wide brush you're painting us all with...

So count me among the people saying "it's not quite that black and white."

strawman

You keep using that word, I do not think that it means what you think it means. So I will explain it to you.

You said
"Then I guess my DM was the sketchy one, since we walked off on him.

I still refuse to agree with what amounts more or less to blaming the victim"

To which I replied

"You decided to sit down at that GM's table in the first place. There were 5 of you, you picked him to run it.

Having a bad role playing game experience doesn't make you a victim. If you feel victimized because the GM didn't agree with you, that is illustrative..."

That is not a strawman.

This is an example of a strawman.

A: Sunny days are good.
B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death.

See the difference?

And reasonable people sometimes do unreasonable things.
There's also the fact that one's circumstances for gaming may change.

Yeah, there is a lot of whining, soul-searching, and arrogant or even just thoughtless commenting on the internet, too...I can sympathize with the OP for stating a mature and reasonable group doesn't experience certain issues as often. But I hope everyone can just remember the old adage "YMMV".

I partially agree... but I'm also taken aback by the attitude of the OP and some of the posters (see the quoted text) of this thread. It's wonderful that you happen to live in an area with a strong role-playing community, or that you've been playing for so long that you've developed a large social network that you can use to fill your game tables. It's wonderful that there are those within the role-playing community who AREN'T from the socially inexperienced side of society. More power to you, and I'm happy things are working out for you.

But to see comments that essentially boil down to "why are you choosing to game with random people?" (Implied: what's wrong with you that your friends won't play with you?) Or "well if you don't have a large pool of well-balanced people to draw from for your games... like attracts like."

So... I'm a bad person because I don't know many gamers? I am somehow mentally imbalanced because I choose to play with people who I haven't been playing with since high school?

It's fantastic that you know so many levelheaded people. But the fact that many of my longstanding friends do not share this particular interest of mine does not make me unbalanced or somehow lesser than you. And comments like the first post in this thread, and the quoted text above, seem rather condescending.

Having said that, and having read at least one of those DM horror story threads, I DO think that the OP has a valid point. I also think that it's a good reminder for people to remember that they DO have the power to walk away from bad tables. But creating a thread so that you make a general declaration to the forums that boils down to "shame on you for not being in my situation" or "if you'd all just gamed like I did then you wouldn't have any problems"?

That's an awfully wide brush you're painting us all with...

So count me among the people saying "it's not quite that black and white."

I do think it is unfair to paint someone in a difficult gaming situation as a (possibly) bad person. And I do think the part of the OP that implies that goes a too far.

And it's especially frustrating when you're trying to find a gaming group, or feel forced to work with what you've got (you're afraid of disappointing someone by leaving, you're running store games on a first-come, first-serve basis, etc.), and things don't work out well.

However, if one finds oneself in the same situation over and over again and either does not confront the problem or seeks out a better group (yes, even as hard as that is), I think there is a situation where one is refusing to solve a problem and instead is wallowing in it and complaining without doing anything about it. Which helps no one, neither the problem gamer nor the gamer being "victimized" by another's poor behavior. Communication is essential, and when that doesn't work, then other solutions need to be sought out actively.

(It sounds to me like in you're situation you're getting to know people and it's difficult but things are moving along and it's a decent group, so congrats.)

Personally these days I'd rather not game at all than with people I don't get along with or whose style is incontrovertibly and dramatically incompatible with mine. Others feel differently, I guess.

But yes, I agree it's important to steer clear of certain accusations if this conversation is going to go well.

And reasonable people sometimes do unreasonable things.

There's also the fact that one's circumstances for gaming may change.

Yeah, there is a lot of whining, soul-searching, and arrogant or even just thoughtless commenting on the internet, too...I can sympathize with the OP for stating a mature and reasonable group doesn't experience certain issues as often. But I hope everyone can just remember the old adage "YMMV".

Everyone has a bad day.

Not everyone posts in on a messageboard so everyone can understand that they think "x" is a jerk.

However, if one finds oneself in the same situation over and over again and either does not confront the problem or seeks out a better group (yes, even as hard as that is), I think there is a situation where one is refusing to solve a problem and instead is wallowing in it and complaining without doing anything about it. Which helps no one, neither the problem gamer nor the gamer being "victimized" by another's poor behavior. Communication is essential, and when that doesn't work, then other solutions need to be sought out actively.

I completely agree. Thank you for articulating that much better than I could.

Personally these days I'd rather not game at all than with people I don't get along with or whose style is incontrovertibly and dramatically incompatible with mine. Others feel differently, I guess.

I think this is a sign of someone's taste in a particular subject maturing. For example, I love to read. I used to read a narrow set of topics and had low standards in terms of quality of writing. Now I read more topics... but only if they are written well. Conversely, I have so little time these days that I tend to watch a very narrow set of movies.

I think that as we gain a broader experience within a field of interest, we learn our likes and dislikes. After a time, our standards raise and we stick with our likes while not putting up with our dislikes.

I'll likely share your attitude after I've spent a few years gaming. I'm simply a lot farther back down the road than you are. :)