|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes people have told me that i take my gaming to seriously, and that it's just a game.
Yeah right, I'll see how you feel when YOU devote countless hours to developing plots, interesting NPCs and locations for me to play in, will you be taking it seriously.
After all, i devote a large chunk of my spare time to this hobby of sorts. Damn right I'm gonna take it seriously.
I am aiming to have fun, of course, but good, serious fun.
Now i imagine some perpetually serious comic book character sitting at my gaming table with a deadly serious expression on his face. I ask him, what are you doing? and he responds "i am having fun!" in a dead voice.
Do they have any examples?
|
|
They probably do, i never asked them though...all that i really want is for them to stop treating tabletop as a video game...or a tactical miniatures game...which is why i am not inviting back two of my longtime players back when i start a new campaign.
And that is taking the game too seriously...i have met a person who actually had to be treated for depression when his PC died irrevocably (he played that PC for 6 years). Now that is taking the game to seriously.
|
No, he wasn't. If he was treated for depression after that PC death, it was a trigger for an escalation that thankfully led to the treatment of his depression.
If you are devoting the time creating plot, npcs etc. 'for your players', and are not taking enjoyment for yourself out of that time, that is too bad, but should that really, in any way alter your players treatment of the game?
In my experience, players tend to invest in the game to have fun. They develope their characters if it is fun for them, they try to immerse themself in the story/world presented if it is fun for them, and they probably expect you, the GM do the same.
Sometimes, the fun of the individual players mismatches so much, that the game doesn't work out with those players in the same group anymore, then, of course, the group should split.
If you get miffed by players not having fun your (of course serious) way or if you stop having fun and do things for their own sake, then you are probably taking the same to seriously. As long as you have fun and you are light hearted enough to jump over small gaps between you and your players style of gaming, everything is all right.
All that IMHO, of course.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah right, I'll see how you feel when YOU devote countless hours to developing plots, interesting NPCs and locations for me to play in, will you be taking it seriously.
Sounds like you're tired of being a GM.
Spending those countless hours developing plot, npc's etc, should be fun, or you are taking it too seriously. From your stern tone, it already seems like you are taking things too seriously. Purposely not inviting back a pair of long-time players because they don't absorb your campaign background as deeply as you do, this speaks volumes of just how seriously you are already taking things.
There's a thin line between doing it because you have fun, and doing it because you feel obligated to for some reason, whether it's personal fulfillment, or some compulsive need to complete things(which I suffer from most of the time). If you feel like all those hours spent filling out your campaign are work, and aren't personal enjoyment, then you need to step back and re-evaluate your game. For me, personally, the moment it stops being fun, and really feels like a work investment, I stop.
You have to realize that out of all the work you do writing and creating, your players are only going to ever interact with a small percentage of it in-game. It doesn't matter if you've written out the trade routes and weather patterns for every perceivable portion of an expansive world map, if it isn't happening "right now" in your campaign, the players likely won't see it. Make peace with this.
Some folks get together and play cards, some play Pathfinder. Sure, it's a lot more work to prepare for a session of roleplaying, but never lose sight of WHY you're doing it in the first place. The game should be only a tool, the real purpose is to have your friends over for a good time.
Maybe you should take less time preparing sessions (and still play), and write a book instead; You sound like you got all the details figured out. I'm sure it would be great.
Ultradan
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your friends are telling you this, assuming they are your friends, maybe you should think about it.
Doesn't mean they're right, but still.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In response to Feytharn's post, the GM's sole responsibility is not to make things fun for his players. It's also to play a game. If he wants to play a serious game, his feelings should be taken into account, because the point of the game is for everyone to have fun. Like others have said, if the GM isn't having fun GMing, there's a problem.
Hama what have you done in-game to make them(the characters) want to take things seriously?
Have you threatened the world? Have you threatened anything the characters might care about?
|
You can have fun and your players can have fun and you can *still* have a very focused intensity to it. It's not insane to love playing a game and take it somewhat seriously.
As long as you know what reality is and where it stops, and you don't act upon the non-reality in a bad way, you're probably alright.
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE preparing for sessions, making NPCs, drawing maps and combining it all into a functional whole. That is 45% of why i love being a GM.
I also love GMing. I love when my players are having fun mowing down my monsters, solving puzzles or succeeding at social encounters. It makes me proud as a GM and that is how i have fun, by providing challenging and fun encounters for my players to overcome. For me that is the core of GMing. And i have fun doing that.
But when you tell your players that the new campaign won't be a dungeon crawl (i've done a fair amount of those, we had loads of fun), but will be immersive and roleplay oriented, and then ask them if they would want to play something like that, they all say sure, and seem really excited about it. We spend two or three sessions building their characters and fixing up backstories so that they fit the setting and the story. And then on the first sessions, they slip back into a dungeon crawl mindset.
Ok, Hama, i say to myself, it takes time to adapt, so eight sessions into the game, three players are getting the hang of roleplay heavy game and are having fun. The two guys mentioned above aren't. So i talk to them, ask them what's the problem, what breaks immersion for them, what can i fix...they say that everything is fine and that i shouldn't worry. Ok.
On the next session, the video game player pretty much looks up from his cell when he needs to roll the dice, and the tactical miniatures one doesn't participate in anything that isn't combat at all. Just stands there silently. I try to get him to play, even have some NPCs call him out jokingly on his strong silent type behavior. Nothing. So i stop the game and ask them again what is wrong. They both say nothing.
Then i say, ok, if you say so, leave. You are obviously not having fun, and are ruining my fun, and possibly their fun. So they pack up and leave.
After a few minutes of mostly silence, one of the remaining players tells me that i take this stuff to seriously. "Dude, it's just a game".
Yeah it's just a game, but a very good game, a game i want to have fun playing.
Hama what have you done in-game to make them(the characters) want to take things seriously?
Have you threatened the world? Have you threatened anything the characters might care about?
I have not threatened the world yet, but i have threatened their village, and a small town that they moved to. Got excellent reactions from the three, but the two guys didn't care. And i really used their backstories to make them care. They just see this as a tactical miniatures game. Something i really think i cannot change, even though i tried for years.
In response to Feytharn's post, the GM's sole responsibility is not to make things fun for his players. It's also to play a game. If he wants to play a serious game, his feelings should be taken into account, because the point of the game is for everyone to have fun. Like others have said, if the GM isn't having fun GMing, there's a problem.
Thanks
Sounds like you're tired of being a GM.
Maybe, but I'm the only one who can actually do it, or wants to for that matter. Plus, when i am playing as a player, i feel the need to GM. It's a curse.
To my friends who don't game but follow every minuscule statistic about (insert sport here), I just look at them blankly then remind them of the pot calling the kettle black. There's little difference between us when you distill it down to the bare truth.
|
|
Take the game as seriously as it needs to be taken. I spend a lot of time working humor into my games, humor that comes from in character interactions and the inherent absurdity of the setting. A laugh is an immediate reaction and lets me know I'm doing my job right as a GM.
Take the game seriously, but not solemnly. There's no use to solemnity, it gets in the way of creativity and fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hama-
If you take what they say at face value, it sounds like they were having fun. You asked them repeatedly if they weren't and they said that they were and that nothing was wrong yet yuo still kept stopping the game to ask what was wrong.
Its entirely possible that they were enjoying themselves completely- just not in the way that you wanted them to enjoy themselves.
I gamed with a guy for awhile who painted miniatures all through the session. He sat behind the couch at a table and paid attention to everything that was said and chimed in when it was appropriate. That particular character was a moronic fighter so he didn't pitch in a whole lot except for battle. To a Dm it might seem as though he was bored and disinterested..b ut nothing was further from the truth. He was there, with his buds, playing D&D. Now sure, if I was DM it might have bugged me that he was painting the mini's during the game but he was able to game just fine and didn't need things repeated.
He was having fun. Just not my kind of fun.
It sounds like your two friends may be in that same boat. They were there, with friends, playing D&D. Sure, they may prefer the combat aspects to the RP aspects but that doesnt' mean they weren't having fun. They just weren't having fun to your expectation and requirement of what they had to do in game to prove it.
I don't necessarily think you are taking the game too seriously but you do need to adjust your expectations of what it takes for others to have fun.
If they *were* telling the truth and they *were* having fun then all you really did was alienate two buddies becaue they weren't having fun your way.
Which is what they told you repeatedly when you asked what was wrong, and they said nothing.
Nothing was wrong.
-S
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE preparing for sessions, making NPCs, drawing maps and combining it all into a functional whole. That is 45% of why i love being a GM.
I also love GMing. I love when my players are having fun mowing down my monsters, solving puzzles or succeeding at social encounters. It makes me proud as a GM and that is how i have fun, by providing challenging and fun encounters for my players to overcome. For me that is the core of GMing. And i have fun doing that.But when you tell your players that the new campaign won't be a dungeon crawl (i've done a fair amount of those, we had loads of fun), but will be immersive and roleplay oriented, and then ask them if they would want to play something like that, they all say sure, and seem really excited about it. We spend two or three sessions building their characters and fixing up backstories so that they fit the setting and the story. And then on the first sessions, they slip back into a dungeon crawl mindset.
Ok, Hama, i say to myself, it takes time to adapt, so eight sessions into the game, three players are getting the hang of roleplay heavy game and are having fun. The two guys mentioned above aren't. So i talk to them, ask them what's the problem, what breaks immersion for them, what can i fix...they say that everything is fine and that i shouldn't worry. Ok.
On the next session, the video game player pretty much looks up from his cell when he needs to roll the dice, and the tactical miniatures one doesn't participate in anything that isn't combat at all. Just stands there silently. I try to get him to play, even have some NPCs call him out jokingly on his strong silent type behavior. Nothing. So i stop the game and ask them again what is wrong. They both say nothing.
Then i say, ok, if you say so, leave. You are obviously not having fun, and are ruining my fun, and possibly their fun. So they pack up and leave.
After a few minutes of mostly silence, one of the remaining players tells me that i take this stuff to seriously. "Dude,...
Your game sounds awesome, and I don't even know what it's about, but I'd play in it.
I want to GM a serious game, but I don't have any players yet.
It just sounds like you want something different from what those players wanted. It's hard some times to get a full party of players that want the same kind of game.
I want to GM a serious action-horror game with significant town NPCs and a lot of interaction with villagers. I have no players, so I know I'm going to have to make concessions when I get players and I will have tactical players and I will have people that can't leave Monty Python at the door. Yes, we all know it's just a model already. Oh, and the players that want to play races that don't suit the campaign. "Oh, it's a low-level game that primarily deals with undead and starts at level 1 in an NPC class? Can I play a centaur?"
Do I want those players in my game? No, not really, but I want to play the game, and playing the game requires players.
If you're able to run your campaign with the remaining players, it might be worth a try. Your remaining players may not be too keen on continuing without the others though.
I feel your pain.
|
|
Hama-
If you take what they say at face value, it sounds like they were having fun. You asked them repeatedly if they weren't and they said that they were and that nothing was wrong yet yuo still kept stopping the game to ask what was wrong.
Its entirely possible that they were enjoying themselves completely- just not in the way that you wanted them to enjoy themselves.
I gamed with a guy for awhile who painted miniatures all through the session. He sat behind the couch at a table and paid attention to everything that was said and chimed in when it was appropriate. That particular character was a moronic fighter so he didn't pitch in a whole lot except for battle. To a Dm it might seem as though he was bored and disinterested..b ut nothing was further from the truth. He was there, with his buds, playing D&D. Now sure, if I was DM it might have bugged me that he was painting the mini's during the game but he was able to game just fine and didn't need things repeated.
He was having fun. Just not my kind of fun.
It sounds like your two friends may be in that same boat. They were there, with friends, playing D&D. Sure, they may prefer the combat aspects to the RP aspects but that doesnt' mean they weren't having fun. They just weren't having fun to your expectation and requirement of what they had to do in game to prove it.
I don't necessarily think you are taking the game too seriously but you do need to adjust your expectations of what it takes for others to have fun.
If they *were* telling the truth and they *were* having fun then all you really did was alienate two buddies becaue they weren't having fun your way.Which is what they told you repeatedly when you asked what was wrong, and they said nothing.
Nothing was wrong.-S
Oh, but there was something wrong. Obviously, when i explicitly stayed that this game will be very combat lite and roleplay heavy, they took it as all combat all the time, because that's what they wanted.
And then, besides my earnest efforts to include them, they decided to shut down and ignore the "boring talky parts".I understand the desire to hang. But if they wanted to just hang, they could have said.so, not disrupt my game.
Oh, but there was something wrong. Obviously, when i explicitly stayed that this game will be very combat lite and roleplay heavy, they took it as all combat all the time, because that's what they wanted.
And then, besides my earnest efforts to include them, they decided to shut down and ignore the "boring talky parts".I understand the desire to hang. But if they wanted to just hang, they could have said.so, not disrupt my game.
Ok, right here? I see a major disconnect in communication. My group is actually going through something similar; our current DM is running a game that is just not fun to any of us. He completely ignores player input, and no matter how much we eyeroll, facepalm, and flat out complain about what the current game is about, he's insistent on shoving us nose-first through it. This has all happened over the course of maybe 4 sessions; our communication has flat out failed. We've voiced our opinions and concerns about the game, and the DM just pushes on. The DM is out of town for the moment, and the entire table is about to mutiny against him and overthrow is campaign.
It should NEVER get to this point.
In my opinion, a good DM has a solid handle on the kind of game he/she wants to run, but takes the wants and interests of the players into heavy consideration. If you are want to run a very RP-heavy, story-based game, but all your players want is combat encounters, there is going to be a problem. *checks forum for thread* Oh, look, here it is! We're in this thread talking about it right now.
This sort of conflict of interests needs to be hashed out before the game ever starts. But, you say you told the players ahead of time all about what you had in mind, and they just went along with it? Then you need to stop the campaign right now, sit down with your players, and go over it again. You might consider calling back those players you kicked out as well.
You guys want 2 different games, and need to come to a point of compromise, or your game is dead in the water.
Then it sounds more like you just had an issue with two players, which you have dealt with. Does this mean this thread is finished?
But the other three are having fun roleplaying. And i am having fun gming for them.
I take player input very seriously.
So, anyway, the three want to continue, so i will.
Yeah, sometimes you need to customize the group. I hope it doesn't end with hard feelings for those who leave.
I've been in the same position, though. My runelords group has only two original players, two more dropped out, and three added over the course of years. I still love my two friends who dropped out, but I agree that it wasn't the right campaign for them.
Try to be more kind Josh M. Better for all of us. :)
To Hama: don't feel bad about throwing out two players. The thing is to recognize differences in playstyle and to be grown up enough to move on if it is not working out. Differences in play style will ruin your friendships out of game if you don't accept them and deal with them. So going further with the three other guys who you are having fun with seems like a sound idea.
I used to be that guy who only wanted to stab things. I did not enjoy the game any less than I do now, but I hated long RP'ing scenes. I just wanted the other party members to get the info that led to the next fight. I never realized that we might get to the fight faster if I actually helped. <--Maybe you can present it to them like that.
Was I unkind at any point? I was not aware, if so.
I understand, Hama. Building a story and a world to run as a DM and having players who only care about combat and spoils sucks.
It's one thing to have a different play style from other people, but it's a different matter entirely to go around being a sociopathic jerk in character just because that's what you get to do in video games. Doesn't sound like that's what your players were doing though. It sounds like they were just out of their comfort zone.
I don't know what manner of "role playing" you like to inject into your games, but I generally like to make the distinction clear cut so as to make it easier on the players to differentiate. Open country/dungeons = combat oriented. Civilization = role playing oriented. That is not to say that I don't mix it up now and again (and usually because one or the other goes south for the PCs).
Perhaps you could warm your "problem" players up to role playing by slipping more verbal interaction into combat? Maybe analyze your PCs' appearances and have bad guys taunt them for something, like silly tassels or over-sized coats. Maybe they poke fun at a big fighter wearing a silk cloak. Get them to talk smack in melee.
|
|
Hama in your defense I think from what you have described it sounds like you gave your players a fair chance. I understand completely I had to quit playing with some of my best friends due to incompatible play styles. It wasn't for lack of trying to compromise either. A lot of folks make it seem like you have to give people infinite chances and compromise all your fun away in the name of gaming. To be fair some people have extremely small pools of players to choose from so they don't have any other choice. I vowed years ago to not put up with it anymore. I spent a ton of time getting to know gamers and find the right group and now I'm having all the fun in the world.
I think the "you take this too seriously" comment might have been a knee jerk reaction to how it all went down. You pretty much had it out in front of the group and told two of your players to "GTFO!" Perhaps it was this approach that the player was referring to?
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend once. I was complaining of past trouble getting players to show up, people who committed to the game but then would punk out at the last minute for a variety of lame reasons.
My friend commented, "Why worry about it? It's just a game?"
I replied, "That may be, but it's 'just' a game that I spent weeks preparing for. Have you ever GMed? Do you have any idea how much work it takes to prepare to run a game? I don't expect people to sell me their firstborn for running a game, but I DO expect people to respect the hours and hours and hours that I spent preparing that I could have instead spent on something else."
My friend's final comment on the matter was, "Oh."
(Ironically, these days I think if I promised that same friend I would move up close to her and her husband and would run games for them, they WOULD probably give me their firstborn in exchange. Thing is, I don't really want him. ;) )
And don't worry, before the advice starts flying, I found better players and no longer have the attendance issues.
ANYWAY, as regards taking the game seriously, there is one issue of -- yeah, the GM's work needs to be respected.
But there is another issue that different players and GMs have different expectations for what they want out of an RPG session. I know people who treat RPGs as deadly serious and you do NOT do anything to disrupt a session or even dare act out of character. I know other people who treat RPGs as an excuse to hang out with their buddies, chat, and enjoy a good story on the side, but however much gets accomplished in a session doesn't matter much. I know people who fall somewhere in between.
The TRICK is to make sure your gaming group more or less consists largely of people who have similar expectations about the focus-to-goof-off ratio.
And/or make sure you establish the expectations of what the gameplay style is to be at the start. Some people prefer the goof-off style of play but can buckle down and focus if that's the general atmosphere the group sets, and vice versa.
I used to be more of a very srs bsns sort of player, very focused, but in the groups I play in now, we don't get to see each other very often so there's a lot more socializing that happens and I don't necessarily want to discourage it because it's often the only time we have to do it. As long as everyone's cool with it, and that's the important part, we can do that.
If there are different expectations amongst the players, then it's time to sit down with them, as a group or individually, and talk about establishing a fuller set of expectations.
And if it's a matter where the GM IS putting in a lot of time and energy and wanting serious focus and the players clearly establish, after a long discussion, that they just want to goof off, then next session bring a copy of Munchkin to play and be done with it.
|
|
Yeah right, I'll see how you feel when YOU devote countless hours to developing plots, interesting NPCs and locations for me to play in, will you be taking it seriously.Sounds like you're tired of being a GM.
Absolutely not. What he is doing is showering it with love.
I most certainly relate to Hama. We don't think twice about our kids entering sporting events where they have to do to camps, practice everyday, hang it up on their walls, etc. I, too, am seriously serious about my fun...that makes it more fun. Every gamer, like every hobbyist has pet peeves regarding the game. For me, it's dice-flippers, but especially it's those who can't be responsible enough for someone to be committed to showing to the game when it's scheduled, for the scheduled amount of time. If you can't make it, vacate the seat for someone who can. But I have a friend who tells me she can't stand gamers just because we expect this 'unreasonable' commitment. Yet she wouldn't dream of her daughter blowing off a swim meet when she is on the team.
However, there's a flip side to that. A game is still a game. If that player hit depression after that character died, there is an unhealthy obsession to the game. Just like the sports player who commits suicide or goes on a drinking binge when they lose a game. Now, keep in mind, a single incident does not a depressed person make. If these situations occur, I will guarantee you that the situation was already there and a bug pooing on a bus bench beside them could have just as easily thrown them into that situation. But I will not tolerate fits, accusations, anger, and rudeness to me or anyone else at the table because the game is not going their way. Like any other game...good sportsmanship and a healthy view of the game are not only necessary...they are required.
Oh, but there was something wrong. Obviously, when i explicitly stayed that this game will be very combat lite and roleplay heavy, they took it as all combat all the time, because that's what they wanted.
And then, besides my earnest efforts to include them, they decided to shut down and ignore the "boring talky parts".I understand the desire to hang. But if they wanted to just hang, they could have said.so, not disrupt my game.
Ok, right here? I see a major disconnect in communication. My group is actually going through something similar; our current DM is running a game that is just not fun to any of us. He completely ignores player input, and no matter how much we eyeroll, facepalm, and flat out complain about what the current game is about, he's insistent on shoving us nose-first through it. This has all happened over the course of maybe 4 sessions; our communication has flat out failed. We've voiced our opinions and concerns about the game, and the DM just pushes on. The DM is out of town for the moment, and the entire table is about to mutiny against him and overthrow is campaign.
It should NEVER get to this point.
Keep in mind that there is a key difference--he asked these players first. Went over it with great detail to make sure they were all on board. What these two players have done is the equivalent of joining a gaming group, making characters, getting their characters ensconced in the story, then vanishing without a word.
Keep in mind that there is a key difference--he asked these players first. Went over it with great detail to make sure they were all on board. What these two players have done is the equivalent of joining a gaming group, making characters, getting their characters ensconced in the story, then vanishing without a word.
True, good point. I've been there before, too. You meet with the players in a pre-campaign session, explain at least half a dozen times this is going to be a RP heavy game, and very combat-lite, and what do they do? They roll up melee-heavy's and blaster-mages. First session that doesn't have a combat passes, and everyone looks bored. *facepalm*
Oh, but there was something wrong. Obviously, when i explicitly stayed that this game will be very combat lite and roleplay heavy, they took it as all combat all the time, because that's what they wanted.
And then, besides my...
They were there and not complaining and interacting as they had the desire to do so. From what your post said, they weren't interrupting or agitating or interfering and from their own words, they were having fun and didn't have a problem.
The problem that was had, was by you and you alone. I'm not trying to "argue" with you- just trying to get you to see another side of the coin.
You look out across your table and say "Those two aren't doing what I want- they aren't having fun" so you ask what is wrong and they say nothing.
Either they are lying or you are wrong.
Either they are flat out lying or they are sitting there enjoying themselves. What they aren't doing is sitting there doing what you want them to do. To be blunt- I'm not there to do what my DM tells me to do. I'm there to have fun. If the DM told me I had to do X Y or Z I would politely tell him to run his world and I'll run my character, thanks though.
If two of your players want to sit there and listen and engage as they see fit- even if that means being mostly quiet- and are having fun doing so then its really not your place to eject them from the game because YOU think they should be playing differently. As I said in my first post- all you've done is alienate those two friends for no reason.
From the sound of it- the guys who stayed agree with that. The other two ought not to have been kicked.
Now I will say that these guys are your friends and all I have to go on here is what you've said. But from what you've said what you really have is a strong need to apologize to the two guys, invite 'em back, and let them be quiet if they choose to do so.
-S
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite possible they're 'lying'. Players aren't always honest when they have a problem with the game. The impression I get from them never doing anything in the game is that they aren't having fun. If a player would rather play with his iPod than participate, he's probably not enjoying the game. And if he's not participating, and his refusal to participate is making the game less fun for the GM, there's a problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, what does looking at your cellphone except when you have to roll the dice mean except that you would rather be somewhere else?
I equal non-participation with disinterest. And if a player is not interested in my game, he has nothing to do at my table, and shouldn't be at the table at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hama is completely right here. If a player is not participating, it doesn't matter if he's having 'fun', he really doesn't have any place taking up space and distracting the others. If he's having 'fun' sitting there playing with his cellphone, he can have the same amount of fun playing with his cellphone back home.
While I dislike the idea of using an electronic device while gaming, it alone isn't a big deal. The problem isn't that the player is using a cell phone while gaming, it's that he's using it instead of gaming. Like Hama said, the player only rolls dice and otherwise ignores everyone else, even when directly addressed.
I've pretty much said my piece about it Hama.
Its your table, you are fit to do was you see fit with it.. but I'd go back to what I said and read it over, and try to put yourself in their position. You just kicked two buddies out of your game for not having fun your way- and the other guys at the table pretty much thought the same thing. Hence their comment to lighten up.
You think you are right- and you very well could be. I sure as heck don't know, being across the country (or world or all I know)- but its at least something to think about.
-S
|
|
I've pretty much said my piece about it Hama.
Its your table, you are fit to do was you see fit with it.. but I'd go back to what I said and read it over, and try to put yourself in their position. You just kicked two buddies out of your game for not having fun your way- and the other guys at the table pretty much thought the same thing. Hence their comment to lighten up.
You think you are right- and you very well could be. I sure as heck don't know, being across the country (or world or all I know)- but its at least something to think about.
-S
No i kicked them because I stopped having fun because of their behavior, and i could see that they were affecting the other players too.
And just to defend the idea that the players might be affected despite complaining about the others getting kicked, being discouraged from roleplaying is a subtle thing. The players might find themselves going IC less and not realize it's because two of the players are playing Mario Bros.
What strikes me most about this is the specific way you handled it:
But when you tell your players that the new campaign won't be a dungeon crawl (i've done a fair amount of those, we had loads of fun), but will be immersive and roleplay oriented, and then ask them if they would want to play something like that, they all say sure, and seem really excited about it. We spend two or three sessions building their characters and fixing up backstories so that they fit the setting and the story. And then on the first sessions, they slip back into a dungeon crawl mindset. Ok, Hama, i say to myself, it takes time to adapt, so eight sessions into the game, three players are getting the hang of roleplay heavy game and are having fun. The two guys mentioned above aren't. So i talk to them, ask them what's the problem, what breaks immersion for them, what can i fix...they say that everything is fine and that i shouldn't worry. Ok. On the next session, the video game player pretty much looks up from his cell when he needs to roll the dice, and the tactical miniatures one doesn't participate in anything that isn't combat at all. Just stands there silently. I try to get him to play, even have some NPCs call him out jokingly on his strong silent type behavior. Nothing. So i stop the game and ask them again what is wrong. They both say nothing. Then i say, ok, if you say so, leave. You are obviously not having fun, and are ruining my fun, and possibly their fun. So they pack up and leave. After a few minutes of mostly silence, one of the remaining players tells me that i take this stuff to seriously. "Dude, it's just a game".
A couple of important things to note here:
1) By your own admission, ALL of the players had a hard time getting into role-playing at first, even your three "good players."
2) After session eight, you talk to your "problem" players and they say everything's fine.
3) The VERY next session, during the middle of play, you stop things and confront them. Then you tell them to leave... in the middle of the session.
4) At least one of the other remaining players expresses disapproval over how you handled things.
One of the problems that I see here is that I don't think you gave your two "bad" players enough time to warm up to the new style - it took eight sessions for your "good" players to "begin to get the hang of it." Why are you penalizing the other two for taking longer?
Another issue that I see here is the very abrupt, confrontational way that you dismissed the players. You pretty much just kicked them out right in the middle of the game, and I think that's kind of rude no matter how you slice it.
You say "they were affecting the other players," but point #4 seems to cast some doubt on that. Have you had a frank discussion with the other players about what they think about kicking the other players out? I mean, it seems to me like they should have some say in that, too - they might enjoy playing with those other two guys, right?
For that matter, it doesn't sound like you were very clear with your two ex-friends, either. You kept asking them "if anything was wrong," and they apparently didn't SEE anything as being wrong - if we take them at their word (I don't see why we wouldn't) they were having fun (and it seems like the other players were too). Did you specifically explain to them how their behavior made you feel? Did you specifically ask them to participate more/differently? Because if you were just constantly asking them "what's wrong," then I can see how two people who are having fun could get kind of blindsided by being kicked out like that.
I sympathize with your broader point; I actually had to stop gaming with an old buddy because our playstyles had gotten to a point of utter incompatibility. Everyone should be able to have fun, including the GM, and sometimes that means editing the player list. However, this should happen after clear, extensive dialog has taken place, and NOT in the middle of a session without warning. That's just good manners.
In my opinion, booting someone(let alone 2 people) right in the middle of a session is a bit excessive. I've had some rambunctious, loud-mouth players in my time, but in my 20+ years of gaming I have never kicked someone in the middle of the session. That's just way too confrontational of an act for something that's supposed to be a fun pastime among friends. At least wait until the session is over.
The awkwardness and negativity something like that could produce would destroy a campaign in my group. If any of our DM's did this, the rest of us would leave.
Again, just my opinion. YMMV
When i said by session eight they were getting a hang of things, i meant to say that they were already immersed in the story and deeply invested into their characters. There was absolutely no difference in the way the two played theirs. It was the same from session 1 up to session 9.
Ok...
So let's move forward.
With the experience you had, Hama, can you give some tips about how you could avoid this in the future? Do you think you will behave differently in the future or act sooner?
Also 8 sessions is close to 40 hours or more. That's a full work week to most people. Maybe the two players might not be playing your style but can you say those two players weren't just as invested into what there characters meant to them? I mean they did show up 8 times!
Personally having 5 players who show up for the game on a regular basis is 90% of the battle to most GMs.
But ultimately it's your table and your call and no one here was there other than you, but you also posted here so I'm hoping you are trying to avoid this in the future or help other GMs avoid similar conflict at their table so I'd appreciate it if you shared what you might change if you could do it over again.
Thanks!