Ok, this is a long post, but as a DM I feel like I'm butting heads with one or more of my players. It's frustrating and a bit awkward, with both sides making passive aggressive comments, and the nature of the campaign (Council of Thieves) makes it even more difficult.
I've been gaming off and on for over twenty years now, and being a DM most of that time. When I moved away from a long time gaming group in 2001, I stopped playing for a while. Thanks to the advent of a little thing known as the internet and the magic of webcams (and now virtual table tops), I was able to rejoin my old group first as a player, and then, when the current DM became too busy with school and work, as the DM. I was just happy to be able to hang out with my good friends once per week and do something I enjoy.
Now, all of that's well and good, and I'm fairly certain there's no real out-of-game tension. There are four players in the group.
Here's what's grating on me, and causing friction with players:
1) I have someone who's walking very close to the line of being dead weight, especially on the roleplaying (as opposed to 'roll' playing) side of things. If it's not listed on his character sheet, he can't seem to come up with anything to pursue/do. He made a halfling druid (min-maxing strength, so that when he hit wild shape he could make the difference, despite my warning about how everything changed in PF), and then, hitting 4th level, decided that his character sucked (because of the change I warned him about) and so changed his character. Eager to get him to DO something, I let him change. Now he's an archer, and every problem looks like an archery target. Sigh. I've tried to get him to talk and interact with NPCs--flirty ones, angry ones, helpful ones and more, but to no avail. When everyone is out checking with contacts or interacting with the characters, he's doing 'nothing' yet again. Other players are even trying to draw him in, if even for a moment, but it doesn't seem to be working.
2) One of the players, who is usually (and is now) the nominal leader of the party, and usually the most helpful person in the group, has taken in it in his head to irritate and conflict with nearly every single NPC. If the NPCs don't bow and scrape and sit quietly and don't ask for a share of the treasure, they might be OK. This is a real problem in that the adventure hooks come from NPCs. And those NPCs aren't usually the most likeable characters (Robahl, anyone?).
And while I don't necessarily believe in the 'wake-up-the-dragon-so-it-can-be-a-fair-fight' paladin, he's probably the most lying, cheating, unhelpful paladin that I've ever seen. It's not that he's committing evil acts, and his unlawful acts might be justified, and are juuuust this side of chaotic, so that he's not reeeeally doing anything wrong.
3) Us vs. Them. In Council of Thieves, it's hard to remind the PCs that they're in an oppressive, lawful evil society without making them so afraid for their characters that they can trust anyone. This is doubly true because the very first time the PCs meet the Children of Westcrown, their supposedly secret meeting is discovered by hellknights. Therefore, there's no trust between the PCs and the Children, and it works both ways... despite trying to be helpful to the PCs, thankful for their help, but also demanding recognition for their help, and an appreciation that they're as much at risk as the PCs.
This PC vs. NPC spills over to immediately helpful NPCs as well, including one 'party member' NPC Oracle that was cast as an old, trusted childhood friend (but was becoming a hellknight of an acceptable order). He was insulted and belittled enough times that I finally decided he wouldn't put up with it anymore. I tried to replace him (he was the party's primary healer), but that character was insulted and belittled, and won't be very helpful at all. It can't even be really justified in terms of 'roleplaying' because the new Archer was immediately taken into the group at the same time as the replacement healer and became 'us,' but the healer was ridiculed.
One player is trying to pull everyone together, but he's not the most effective. The silent player is just sitting there, because he can't make a roll to do anything. The other two who are adopted sisters (in the game) are the best roleplayers, but most of that consists of ridiculing the NPCs, including the pictures that I personally drew of some of them.
4) Rolling. I'm a firm believer that there are some rolls that PCs usually shouldn't know the numerical results of for whatever reason. Sense Motive and Perception, maybe Bluff. Sometimes, just making the roll gives away something, and knowing if you've rolled high or low is usually enough to verify their result (so why bother rolling?). I get snarky replies when I roll those checks for them, well, from one or two of them. I've explained why I roll those checks, but they sort of got away with it from a previous DM, and it gets a little old explaining. Also, it's not a hard and fast rule, sometimes I have them roll, sometimes I do, depending on the situation.
5) I'm not perfect, and neither is the situation. So, I'm not blameless. The players have some rational reasons to not trust/dislike the NPCs (Robahl!). A bad experience trying to free a slave, because the slave wasn't fawning and grateful (since they were basically throwing her from a relatively secure and long-since tolerated life as a slave to being a vagrant with no money, job or possessions). The Children's one brush with the law was their first impression of them, so they don't trust them there. I encouraged the PCs to take leadership rolls with the Children, if they thought that they could do better, but instead, they were more concerned with buying the shop of the murdered swordsmith so that they could turn around and sell their adventuring spoils for full price (despite the fact it wasn't exactly a sound business investment, and they hadn't reckoned on the fact that they're in an oppressive society with taxes!). I've tried to accommodate different play styles, which doesn't help. And again, the NPCs are usually so ticked at the PCs that it's a chain of hostility. Yes, Cheliax can be unfriendly and unforgiving, but the people might not be.
Plus, when I play up the oppressiveness of their society, it seems like I'm just trying to play GM Fiat Smackdown. When they wanted to start the business, I painstakingly dug through my old D&D books to find rules for running the business. I researched (all the way back to the AD&D DMG) the cost of the house. I accounted for the previous owner's debt and taxes, and the fact that the Chelaxian government wouldn't really care about the niceties of 'fair', I checked what the capital outlay would require to start the business, what assets the business already had, (even pricing, tool by tool, the forge and shop from Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog). I tacked on an excessive but not overwhelming 'inheritance tax.' that had to be accounted for, just to be Lawful Evil, because, what's more Lawful Evil than taxes, right? So I'm trying to say yes to their plans, but it seems like I'm saying no all of the time.
6) Distance. Playing over a webcam is a trying experience for those that have never done it. It's very hard to read people's reactions and moods when you can't see all of them. It's hard to keep people focused when you can't watch them to see when attention drifts. It's easy to be irritated in an already tense situation when folks are whispering away from the microphone. I think I might have to ask them to do some rearranging so that I can see most of them. Or something. This also doesn't help them us vs. DM mentality.
7) The very act of typing this has helped a little, and given me some ideas. But it's such a hazy area that it gives me a headache trying to solve it. In some places, I've bent over backwards, in others I've tried to stay firm, in others, I've just pointed out that it's not a friendly place. I think I'll have to talk to the players at some point. I'm resentful because I spend a lot of time prepping for the games, building virtual table top maps, tokens preparing handouts and scenes, drawing characters, charting out the world and characters, that having it ridiculed gets irritating. Don't get me wrong, I usually enjoy DMing, and they seem to be interacting with the game world.
I guess I'm venting primarily, but I'd love to hear advice from other DMs. This is an interesting and unique resource. If you've made it this far, thanks for reading. (It's not usually interesting to read other folk's problems).
Thanks
--M
Here's what's grating on me, and causing friction with players:
1) Let it go. Unless the player is actively ruining the other players (including GM) fun, let them be.
Each person can enjoy different things about the game. Hack 'n' slashers can play with rpers, if they can be respectful enough of the others time in the game.
The player doesn't have to play the game the same way as the rest of you.
2) This is more problematic. If this character alone is getting a reputation of being problematic, have any future NPCs refuse to interact with the group while this character is around. (This might backfire if it is a player problem bubbling to the surface, rather than a character problem.)
3) Let the campaign sit. If the group won't let NPCs interact with them, leave it all up to the group to continue. When they can't get any further without help they should become more welcoming of NPCs. (Again, this could very well backfire if it is player problems, and not character problems.)
4) I understand your point of view. But you might consider letting the players roll. If that is what they are looking to do, maybe that is the way it should be done. Either that, or roll a bunch of times before the game, and go down the list as needed. This hides the fact you are making rolls for them and just proceed on.
5) While you went through a lot of work, you might have gone through too much work. If the effort of achieving ones plans out ways the perceived reward of completing the plans, it is more like a punishment than a reward. (Also, I've found the more work the GM goes through for something, the less likely they are to budge on the thing. So in your example, I would know - if I was aware of the work you went through - there would be no getting around the "fun tax" of all your taxes, and probably would have told you "nevermind" from the start. Nothing personal, and no insult meant. Just trying to illustrate what might be going through the players minds.)
6) I got nothing for you. Not only have I not tried online gaming (yet), the groups I have played in have those very same problems in person.
7) This tells me you are a source of the groups problems. Note, I didn't say the source. As I noted under 5) (I've been replying as I read, so I didn't know this was coming), I've seen this kind of thing before. I'm not mocking it, or even trying to belittle it. Just when I, as a player, find GMs that fall into the the mindset of "I worked damn hard on this, and we are going through it" mentality I feel it is time to move on. On this path lies railroading. Some people (like myself) can't play under this style of GMing. Maybe your players are reaching that point.
After all that, if you haven't figured out on your own, a group chat is in order. Everyone needs to know what is expected of them from others, and the group needs to decide if it is worth trying to keep the game alive.
I wish you luck, because I have yet to see a group recover from this stage.
In other words, if you pull it off let me know how! ;-)
"I think I'll have to talk to the players at some point."
That's the first thing you need to do.
Seriously, a lot of this can be resolved if you sit down and work this out with the players. And they certainly can provide helluva lot more useful feedback than a bunch of Internet strangers who know neither you nor your players.
But if Internet stranger advice is your thing:
1) Your friend's name is Lumpy Bob. And you say to him, "Lumpy Bob, I noticed that all you do is sit around and shoot things. I'm trying to get you involved in the story, and I don't know how. I'm afraid you're not having fun. What can I do to help you get engaged?"
Lumpy Bob might say, "Well, what I really want is to be able to talk to an elf about shoes (or WHATEVER)." Give him an elf he can talk about shoes with. Listen to what he'd like to do, listen to his feedback, tell him what you can adjust and do for him, and tell him what won't work.
Or Lumpy Bob might say, "WTF are you talking about? I really like sitting around and shooting things. This makes me happy, so why are you worried?" Carry on. If what he wants to do is sit around and shoot things, if he's happy and other people are roleplaying and following your story, great!
And if Lumpy Bob says, "You know, this isn't my bag," then it isn't his bag. Cut him lose, and it'll probably make the both of you much happier.
2) First, talk to him about the alignment issues, and tell him you're frustrated--and remind him that you're running from an Adventure, where you're a little more limited in how you can have your NPCs respond. Work out with him the conflict between your image of what a paladin should be and his.
Secondly, you're a very experienced GM, so even with running within the confines of an Adventure, I'm sure you have more than enough creativity and wherewithal to be able to play out the consequences of his actions accordingly. If he attacks an NPC, play out the fight. If he insults the mayor, have him arrested. If he treats the important information broker like crap, then the party doesn't get the information, and they'll have to find another way in. If nothing else, if the consequences of his IC actions negatively affect the party, the IC the party has a reason to take it up with him and work it out in character--which may well result in some really cool roleplaying. That said, it's VERY important not to be passive aggressive or overly mean; but if you treat a person like crap, the person will respond in kind, and you should make it clear your NPCs are going to act the same way.
Finally, PROVIDED you have talked to the player about the alignment issues first and make clear your expectations, if he does something un-Paladinly--again, play out the consequences. Paladins are hard to play for a reason. If he does an evil act, he loses his powers. End of story. Again, done right, this is an opportunity for roleplay, not a GM screws you over kind of thing. If you want to avoid that/try a different tack---let's say, with all his rationalizing, he's really being Lawful Evil (or whatever). Have it turn out that, even unknown to him, the source of his Paladinly power is not a god but a powerful fiend. Have the fiend show up at an opportune moment and thank him for advancing his goals.
3) First, I'd just stop trying to use GMPCs. They can be helpful, but if the party's reacting poorly to them, then just leave them out. Sometimes players get resentful of GMPCs/NPC party members because they feel they're "stealing the glory" (even if they are really not). Plus it's more work for you that's not necessary, and it's sounding like you're having a hard time.
As for the general NPCs--look, I feel your pain on how players react to NPCs. Generally I find players will trust the most horrible, evil, NPC you've got and will assume the friendly neighborhood orphan saver secretly eats puppies. There's not much you can do about that except again, play out the consequences. If you really NEED an NPC to be trusted, try connecting them to a player in some way ("this is your cousin Fred") and have them do them a really big favor. If Mr. Paladin is pissing off the important people, maybe you can bring in an NPC who hated those important people and will get them the information/stuff they need instead.
Also, I don't know Council of Thieves, but I get the sense that mistrust and intrigue are the name of the game. If they're too accepting of the NPCs around them, that doesn't work either.
And again, just talk to them. "Guys, I know you're playing your characters, but we're never going to get through this story if you assume everyone hates you." Players often respond well to, "You're not going to progress in the story (and get loot and XP) if you keep going this route." And ASK THEM FOR FEEDBACK on how you can portray your NPCs more amicably.
4) When I want pre-rolled Perception checks, I ask the players at the beginning of the session to, for example, "Roll 4 Perception checks." I write down the results, and when the first Perception check comes up, I cross off the first line of rolls. This way, I get to "activate" the check when it's needed, but the players still got to roll their own dice and feel less powerless.
However, if the players really are uncomfortable with it, just stop. I don't pre-roll if my players are uncomfortable (I ask at the start of the campaign if this is okay). While there's extremely good reasons for pre-rolling, it's not necessary, and if it brings the tension down by dropping the practice, that's a good thing.
5) See 3. Tell them you're frustrated and ask them for feedback on how you can present NPCs in a way that will encourage more interaction.
6) Can't help with that, but all I can say is this is all the more reason you need to be having open, OOC discussions about what's going on and find out how to make everyone more comfortable with the situation. It does have to be rough to try to run with that extreme limitation. I think if I didn't play with my players face to face (and the players are lovely and bring Doritos and Oreos).
7) Yep, talk to them. And maybe remind them of the amount of prep you're putting into this. And Doritos and Oreos wouldn't hurt, long distance or not. ;)
Thanks, folks (seriously, even just for reading through the huge post!).
I knew I needed to have 'The Talk' with them, but it helps to have some feedback to think about and compromises to offer.
It's also helps me to see them from another angle (I'm pretty much the only 'professional' DM, meaning that I usually run rather than play a character), so it's good to hear from others.
As for current thoughts:
1) Mostly, I'm concerned for the player's enjoyment during the heavy roleplaying scenes. These die off, but are still extant in the later adventures. I'd let him sit, but I also want to make sure he's involved and engaged, at least partially. I want to make sure he's part of the story...
2) Again, he's juuuust on the eeedddge of being an obstruction. Griping, insulting, and complaining the whole way, but generally going along. I've tried letting the NPCs react naturally, but it either grinds the game to a hault or again, is just seen as DM Fiat Smackdown. He does need a good Paladin sit down, maybe by working with him to codify his strictures.
3) Yep. The 'GMPC's are going out the window. What annoys me is that they asked for the extra help. Sigh. As for the conflicts with the others and campaign lock up, the campaign might solve that problem itself (being less 'go there, do this' after this point. Plus, you know, the whole communication thing.
4) Hmm. Prerolled. That's a really good idea. I remember an old article that talked about rolling eight of them, and then rolling a d8 to choose which one to use, then marking it off...
5) Unfortunately, just doing this at a distance is a lot of work, requiring work on the maps (for the virtual table top) and things. I enjoy building a reactive world, and if they want a business, then I don't mind that (though they're a little low level to start planning for retirement). The work comes in accommodating all of the changes I have to make to let them do what they want to do, usually. Which is a bit of a headache. Yes, they're the heroes of the story, and the protagonists, so the world reacts to them, but I need them to work with the world just a little bit more. Again, communication.
6) Communication. I really do want to make sure everyone's having a good time, and part of how I did that in the past is to watch and work with everyone (if someone seemed happy being quiet, then great! and etc.).
7) Again, it's a lot of work just to play (which I normally don't mind and even enjoy, unless it's being ridiculed and complained about every step of the way). I know I'm part of the issue (after all, it takes two heads to butt heads), but I guess I need to ask them for a little help.
Again, thanks everyone for taking the time. You've given me some good stuff!
|
Disclaimer: I read most of your OP, especially at first, but not all. And not the other Lords of the Boards' posts.
Problem 1:
As long as he knows that he won't be allowed to actually break the game -- which I think he hasn't realy figured it out yet, despite your introductory talk to him about the Druid wildshape changes.
Tell him. Let him know it's fine to min/max, etc., but let him know, word by word, that you have a responsiblity to the whole group: that if he does find a way to break your game you'll have to change something -- RAW or not -- on his PC sheet.
He can design his archer any way he wants according to RAW; that's cool. If he is able to become more powerful than the other PCs, though, you have to bring his PC down to earth. To be fair to the other Players.
If he has a problem with you as a result, he can choose to no longer game with you. Hopefully he understand the game has to be fair, RAW be damned, but if not, you can't lose any sleep over losing the Player.
Problem 2:
Take him aside separately and ask if you have made some DM blunder recently that is making him run his PC this way. Give him the opportunity to explain his recent roleplaying decisions.
When this happened to me a year or so ago I learned that I had described the terrain in a fight badly. It involved a Wall of Force and a Cloudkill. Because the other Players were not confused with my description of the battlefield he had to accept that it wasn't all my fault. Because I don't use a grid for most of the fights, I had to accept that if even one Player is confused but the others aren't, I have to give the confused PC a second chance.
But I didn't even know what the Player was upset about until the end of the following session (I knew he was upset but had no idea why). We resolved it immediately.
Regarding his alignment, I dunno, this seems more like a symptom of the real problem, something that will go away as soon as the real problem is taken care of.
Wait and see on that one.
Problem 3:
But challenge "Us vs Them" atmospheres by rooting for the PCs in a fight. Be on their side; cheer when they get a crit. Be worried when you drop one to neg HP; ask the other Players if they can help. Even give away some free metagame knowledge like, "Hey guys, this orc has to go for the coup de grace when his turn comes in initiative; can you "happy stick" your buddy by then or cause some other kind of diversion so the orc can't do the coup de grace?"... That kind of stuff.
When the PCs put a special beat down on a BBEG that you thought would last more than 2 turns in the opening round, be surprised and distraught. Shed a tear for your BBEG -- be a bit dramatic. This will let them feel awesome. Later (next session or whenever), bring up how bad ass they were.
If you have an NPC run away, make him say something like "Crap, I can't fight them" and make him wet his pants as he withdraws.
This kind of stuff really helps get rid of the "DM vs PC" atmosphere.
Problem 4:
Your gonna have to let this one go, I think. Let them roll their Sense Motive or Spot or whatever. There's a really good section in the DMGII about this. I don't have my books with me to check it out but it was really well done. I don't know if you have that book from 3E; maybe someone with the PDF can copy/paste parts of it here.
Problem 5: This is just another part of what I said in #2.
|
|
I think I'll have to talk to the players at some point.
That's the first thing you need to do.
I hope this means you'll talk to (e-mail) the Players INDIVIDUALLY. Problem #1 has nothing to do whatsoever with Problem #2. They should not be grouped together.
If you do, you could very easily come across as giving a lecture. That is not the way to play this out if you want to make things better.
HEY, I didn't say <deleted> in that post!
What gives?!
It might be an effect of posting three times in a row...
Test #2.
Test #3.
EDIT:: Or not...
Maybe you hit the landmine when you wrote - that's Mr.Fishy's avatar?
s Mr.F
Edit: Yep, that seems to have done it.
Edit 2: Sweet! I'm Miles Davis!
Test #3.
EDIT:: Or not...
I hear if you say 'Gargamel' ten times in your bathroom mirror, you need to spit out the mouthwash.
Ahem...not sure where that came from.
Thanks for the suggestions, again! It helps to hear different viewpoints, even if they are slightly different.
Talking to them individually (and maybe collectively) is definitely in order. It's hard to sort out the issues, and the distance (and the fact that one of them doesn't *ever* read his e-mail) makes it hard to communicate with them. Though I'll try. I might do some checking with the ones that I can before game night.
The quiet one's powergaming isn't the problem...each character has a way to shine (heck, thanks to judicious control, the dwarf paladin is nigh invulnerable at the level they're at--he deliberately made a tank), but rather that he rarely speaks and doesn't take any initiative (except the roll). I do need to make sure he's enjoying it (though he hates being less than level six...we had to remind him that eventually the character's reach that point).
Once again, thanks.
|
|
When I got home I checked the DMGII to see what page I was refering to.
If you check pages 22-24 you see a couple different ways to handle Player knowledge as opposed to PC knowledge in reference to how to DM.
If you don't have it, or, if someone can't post a link or give a copy/paste from their PDF, the text basically illustrates two procedures:
One in which the Players know that one of the PCs has been Charmed by a vampire because the DM roleplayed -- and rollplayed -- the scene with the PC at the table in front of the other Players.... Thus, all the Players know that the vampire is gonna hit 'em and the suspense at the table is tangible. (In literature we call this Dramatic Irony; it's cool.)
The other in which the DM takes the PC into a different room, away from the other Players, and runs the scene. When they get back to the group none of the other Players know what happened and don't know their comrade has been charmed.
The DMGII discusses, in clear and concise metagame terms, the strengths and weaknesses of both.
In my experience as a popular DM, the former procedure is much better.
Let them know their Bluff role failed.
Let them know their Sense Motive was a "1."
Trust me, it's better
* Evil DM grin
|
|
When I got home I checked the DMGII to see what page I was refering to.
If you check pages 22-24 you see a couple different ways to handle Player knowledge as opposed to PC knowledge in reference to how to DM.
If you don't have it, or, if someone can't post a link or give a copy/paste from their PDF, the text basically illustrates two procedures:
One in which the Players know that one of the PCs has been Charmed by a vampire because the DM roleplayed -- and rollplayed -- the scene with the PC at the table in front of the other Players.... Thus, all the Players know that the vampire is gonna hit 'em and the suspense at the table is tangible. (In literature we call this Dramatic Irony; it's cool.)
The other in which the DM takes the PC into a different room, away from the other Players, and runs the scene. When they get back to the group none of the other Players know what happened and don't know their comrade has been charmed.
The DMGII discusses, in clear and concise metagame terms, the strengths and weaknesses of both.
In my experience as a popular DM, the former procedure is much better.
Let them know their Bluff role failed.
Let them know their Sense Motive was a "1."
Trust me, it's better
* Evil DM grin
I think you've misinterpreted their gaming personalities, and it sounds to me like you're the wrong DM for this group.
You want to play an immersive, storyteller style game where everyone takes the world seriously and really buys into the idea that they're characters in a living, breathing fantasy world. You tirelessly work to provide painstaking detail and verisimilitude.
Your players want to "win". They're roll-players masquerading as role-players, hence they don't appreciate any of the immersive detail you're trying to represent. Your best player right now is the archer, simply because he's honest. He doesn't pretend to care about any of the extra detail you provide, because he doesn't. The other players don't care either - in fact they're annoyed by it. That's the source of their insults and snide comments. They want to skip past the fluff and get to the parts where they "win". They want your NPCs to draw swords or get out of the way. The point of owning the swordsmith's business is to game the system, not to interact with the game world. Your players see every NPC as an adversary because that's what they want - to prove their mettle against the world, the game, and you.
The bottom line is that it's not worth all of that work for an unappreciative audience, and you need to stop trying to force them to play a game they don't want.
I finally was able to have a sit-down talk with the folks in the group (well, I sat here and they sat 300 miles away, but...) There was a lot of mis-communication and frustration on both sides, mostly boiling down to the fact that the technology interfered quite a bit, and that it was hard to 'read' reactions over the internet. Misunderstandings abounded and tempers flared.
They pointed out that a lot of the trouble with the NPCs was, ironically, because they didn't roll their sense motives, they mistrusted everyone by default. And it really didn't make that big of a difference to me, so back their rolls went. I'll probably be making some perception checks for them, but honestly I'd rather keep them happy.
Quiet guy seemed perfectly happy being quiet, even when confronted by the
We're nailing down the Paladin's code...the character was getting a wee bit chaotic. All in all I'm hopeful for the future.
As for NPCs, some of that conflict was caused by escalating frustrations (and not rolling sense motives), so that should get easier. They have legitimate issues with some, but that should be less trouble further into the campaign. Again, we'll see how it goes, but opening up the gates of communication is a big help. Everyone felt better afterwards.
Also, I tried something else. I'd noticed that I spent most of the game slumped in a recliner (since hey, I'm vegging at home, right?) but ordinarily in 'face-to-face' games I prefer to be less comfortable than the players, even walking and standing usually. So I changed my posture, sitting upright, feet on the floor. It helped keep me focused and in the DMing zone. I'd recommend trying it, rather than 'dming in your underwear...' Hey, it's serious business, being a DM, it's time I treated it as such again.
Anyways, time will tell. I wanted to thank everyone that took the time to read and reply as well! All of the advice was appreciated, whether it was used or not.
Thanks!
--M
Good stuff
Glad to hear things seem to be back on track. Good luck, and keep us posted. :)
Despite all the long posts and the long answers, one thing you said early in your first post stood out to me, you moved and stopped playing for a few years and then got back together with your old group. A lot of the problems could just be that you and they do not see things the same way any more. This happened to me too. I had friends I had gamed with for over 10 years and then I moved out of state for 4 years. When I moved back, I got together again with the old group. Sadly, in the time I was gone, something had shifted in views or playing styles or something and I just felt like I did not belong any more, so I quit playing in that group.
Despite all the long posts and the long answers, one thing you said early in your first post stood out to me, you moved and stopped playing for a few years and then got back together with your old group. A lot of the problems could just be that you and they do not see things the same way any more. This happened to me too. I had friends I had gamed with for over 10 years and then I moved out of state for 4 years. When I moved back, I got together again with the old group. Sadly, in the time I was gone, something had shifted in views or playing styles or something and I just felt like I did not belong any more, so I quit playing in that group.
This is more true than you know. I stopped playing with them in 2001, right after 3.0 came out, of which I ran only a short, truncated campaign. I had DMed for this group for five or six years at this point, in a variety of systems, but mostly AD&D 2nd edition. They played together at least weekly (although there were breaks when one of my buddies went to Iraq, and for other reasons) since then.
About a year ago, I started up playing with them again by wire. I started by playing, joining late in the Age of Worms AP. The DM for that one got busy, and I'm always up for running a game, so we started up a few short campaigns that dissolved for various reasons (mostly because they were experimental). Actually, we had a blast playing a Clone Wars campaign in Saga edition where everyone (including my friend's 10 year old son) played clones, but it's only a fun gap filler.
3.5 (and 3.0 and PF) are still fairly new experiences to me, and they've been playing them for years. I'd only been playing them through Neverwinter Nights :). I like a lot of the changes...I was very excited when 3.0 came out, but some of the conceits have changed a lot. I'm still not sure how I feel about buying and selling magic items, for instance, and the skills aren't nearly as free-form as the proficiency system. PF helped with some of those concerns, btw.
Still, we're friends first, and I think our styles are still compatible, it's primarily that the medium that we communicate through is a bit limited. It's helped that I don't have a group in the town I'm at anymore, because they're the opposite end of the spectrum--they prefer roleplaying with a very little combat, as opposed to combat with some roleplaying. C'est la vie.
I'm sorry to hear you stopped playing with your old group...sometimes you can't go home. If possible, I suggest talking with them about your concerns, with a positive aim. It really helped burn away a ton of the bad feeling in my group.