|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been a GM for six years, starting with the 3.5 ruleset back in 2007 and running campaigns for friends on and off. I've learned how to balance encounters, let each PC have a moment to shine, create sweeping storyline arcs that tie everything together, give PCs freedom to explore without railroading them, and strike a balance between rules lawyer and gracious host.
My gaming groups have never been as big into the storytelling as I have, which is fine. As the GM, I should be more interested in it than them; however, my group treats our bi-weekly meetings as mere social events with a side of Pathfinder. Any attempts to introduce roleplay are met with disdain and the revealing of cell phones to watch videos, crack jokes, and otherwise get off topic.
I spend hours each week finding interesting developments for PCs, writing intriguing encounters, scheduling sessions, finding great background music to accompany the game, e-mailing them asking for ideas about their characters, and updating our campaign journal online. Not because I have to, but because I enjoy creating an immersive world for my friends to experience.
Last week was the final straw, the last crumbling bastion of willpower that finally cracked beneath the weight of player disrespect. I can now be added to the list of failed GMs who threw in the towel in the face of overwhelming odds. At my players' request, I created a special Halloween episode that involved the exploration of a haunted house. One showed up two hours late. The rest BS'd at the table for a full hour and a half, accomplishing nothing. When I finally called for initiative, I achieved perhaps 40% of their attention. The rest was saved for cell phones and off-topic joking. No interest in roleplay and only minimal interest at the swarm of undead heading their direction. They couldn't even remember the name of the NPCs they've interacted with the last five sessions -- not to mention we never made it to the haunted house. Three-quarters of my session weren't even touched because I couldn't get them back on track.
When the night was done, I decided I was done. Next few days, I worked with one of the players who seems to understand my plight and we agreed to switch to him as GM.
My year-and-a-half epic campaign came to a screeching halt. All the NPCs they had interacted with are gone, my 44,000 word campaign bible I set up for them is now utterly worthless, and the three major campaign arcs I designed were reduced to ash in mere seconds.
When I sent the e-mail to the group explaining that the GM duties were switching and we were no longer playing my campaign, I was met with: "Okay", "Cool", and "Sounds good." That's it. One didn't even bother to respond.
Hey, at least I get to try playing an Inquisitor now.
The main point of this post isn't to ask for advice... I'm aware of some of the things I did wrong, but I realize that most of this is out of my control. My group doesn't want to play as much as I do, period. I mostly want to get this off my chest, get a little encouragement from the great community here, and point out that if you have a GM who strives to be fair, cares about your characters as much as you do, and doesn't adopt the "GM-versus-player" attitude, thank him/her next time you see them. They work hard to make sure everybody's having fun. Make sure they're having fun, too. Or else go home and play Skyrim.
Oh, and if anybody lives in the Denver metro area and wants to consider getting together once a week to play, who knows. Maybe that would work better than relying on my friends as players.
Hang in there man. It can be tough, but I can only hope you can find people who want to play like you.
A few things from my experience:
It can be fun to play with people who have NO experience with RPGs (PnP or computer), since they dont have as many expectations. My first GM-ing experience was with folks like that, and they where always pleasantly surprised at what they could do. It was with my little sisters and some of their friends, and they had a blast.
I would recommend checking out app.roll20.net. It's a web based PnP interface, that integrates a virtual gaming table, skipe-ish thing, and a lot of cool tools. I've had a lot of fun with it, and it's extremly easy to find new players/GMs if a game falls through. I know web-play isnt the best, but it's allowed me to play despite an unstable locations and no interested friends.
That's great crank! I've met some good people on roll20, from all around the world, so it can be worth joining the occasional random game/campaign just for fun (if you havent tried before).
As a non GM I can't offer a ton of wisdom, but I do certainly thank the GMs I do play with who value the game.
For a long time, the only real role-playing game I played in was with a group that has been playing Earthdawn for over fifteen years. At this point the game has slid into a situation very similar to how you described as the monthly social event with a side of game. Finding another group helped remind me how much fun it could be.
I hope you find your new group. There are certainly players out there looking you someone like you.
@ OP: I thought you were just copying and pasting from my own head. Despite numerous online options I prefer to play in person, keeping my player pool limited. The players I do have see their characters as a collection of numbers and since we only play once a month detail is wasted on them; I don't craft sweeping story arcs any more or intricate wolf-in-sheep's-clothing style villains. Finally they are tactical types meaning that most every feat, skill, or point on their character sheet is geared towards combat.
All I can say is that I feel your pain and you should hang in there.
One of my current players has begun coming out of his shell a tad. He still rarely speaks actually IN character, but he has dialogue now at least. Also he is playing a paladin optimized for Diplomacy and Intimidation over DPR or Tanking. He actually stopped to go full defense and adjust the attitude of oncoming hostile fey.
I've only played one session w/these guys and based on previous experience I don't have a really grand plotline right now. Still perhaps this campaign they'll remember the NPCs and the place names and all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recommend using published adventures and modules. I've had a ton of fun running the ones I have and at the end of the day, the pros are much better at writing interesting things than I am. Often these have neat mechanics and the number crunching is done for you The other nice thing is that if the game loses steam or people aren't interested, you're not out days of wasted planning and writing. You could even sell the book to recoup some of your money. World buidling is way too much work to begin with and if it's thankless and wasted, that's rage-inducing.
|
|
Thanks, Mark. I don't intend to fully drop GMing. At some point I'll probably try again, albeit with a different group. The worst part about my current experience is that it has thoroughly soiled my friendship with one of these guys, as his clear antagonism toward my hard work is just the icing on the cake of a bunch of other friendship faux pas he's committed. Good luck with your campaign -- it sounds like you've adapted better than I did. I didn't want to lower my standards and it resulted in burnout. Maybe that was a mistake.
Shaun, I considered doing just that for the very same reasons. I also considered asking the group to pitch in to buy the modules so that they had a vested interest. At this point, my burnout is too extreme, and I'm suffering the exact rage-inducing thankless world-building you described. This may be my strategy in the future.
Thanks for the encouragement, everybody.
Sounds like you just need some different players with different expectations about gaming. Some people have very different views about table top and if your views aren't meshing with others than perhaps you should find another group or (as you have already done) switch out of being DM. Such realization suck, but no good will come of being angry and resentful that your players aren't appreciative of your effort.
Heh, thanks C-dawg. Just one note though; I've "adapted" after no less than 6 campaigns with these and other folks! My last game I thought was a keeper for sure. I dropped most of my old group, got new players who wanted immersion and less combat, and I thought "perfect! I'm finally going to get what I want!"
Turns out that I wasn't running the KIND of immersion/RP that these new players wanted.
Weird thing for me was that I thought we had really good dialogue over email. One of the players told me he genuinely enjoyed my game. Then we had a bad session and I got some rules wrong. However in talking over the issues w/that session we argued over RAI and such. Then, suddenly, the emails stopped flowing. A week later my new players broke up with me saying they'd been unhappy for quite some time.
I felt pretty blindsided but in the end its for the best for everyone. If I wasn't running the game they wanted or if a rift was forming between us personally, nothing I could've said or done would've changed that. I grieved the loss of the game, sulked for a bit, then started writing again.
I now have 2 of my old players back from 2 campaigns ago. Hopefully this one sticks, but we'll see what happens. Make lemonade out of lemons dude; that's the ONLY thing you can do.
One thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that when they say that it's the GMs job to make sure evryone has fun, "everyone" includes the GM. This is a perfect example as to why.
A few tips to find a group to play (from my own long-winded efforts to find people to play with in RL):
-Check out colleges/universities. A lot of them have gaming clubs, and some of them can be quite large. This can help wiht finding interested/interesting players.
-meetup.com: it's a site that allows people to organize events. There are a large amount of gamer groups on the site, so it could be worth your time to check it out.
-PFS: Yes, I know PFS isnt the best option to be able to play a story based campaign, but it can allow you to meet more players that might be interested in "a little more" than just PFS.
I've felt the same way as you do Crank on many occasions prior to my current group. My advice is that if your friends are not really interested in actually playing the game then you do as you did and start playing instead, but I feel you'll still be frustrated in the end as their attitudes and habits at the table will continue no matter who is GM'ing the game. You will end up being the only one who plays and actually gets into the game with the new GM.
I'd really consider paring down the group to the people who actually want to play and find a few others to come join a more serious group whether it's by finding some new players through other people you know, at a FLGS, or even online. I've had great success finding people online to come join my group.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Been there before. Finding a group of gamers that all share the same expectations can be a challenge. For example, we have a weekly group now, and every few sessions we mix things up by doing a board game day. My players love the story but need variety. Setting up in the same seat with the sheet and the dice and the books may not appeal as much to one gamer as another.
Warning signs that players want to keep meeting but need some variety include: last minute cancellations, calling in sick on game day, complete cluelessness at the story plot or NPC names, not updating the character sheet, and they're playing Skyrim a lot more than usual.
As a fellow gm in the Denver area I think its fair to say
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
(Cue Rock Ballad as lightning strikes, windows shatter, and I absorb your powaaaaa!)
We've got a table full of GM's and our current GM says he's kinda burning out at the moment too. It happens. Kick back. Enjoy not knowing what's around the next corner for a while...
We're on the last book of rise of the runelords and after that we're going nuts with a Rifts/Phase World/Black market sandbox that probably doesn't suit everyone's taste... I'd be curious to hear what kind of games you've got going on. Don't count your awesome ideas as a waste though.
Any campaign element not used is a great element to have on hand for other campaigns... Ideas aren't like Kidneys... When someone plunges their fist into your gut and rips it out forcefully and destroys it, You get to have new ones, and the old one can still be reassembled, reused, and even put back.
|
Don't let one group of players not really investing into your story make you scrap your whole idea. I have a homebrew setting that was started with one group of players and then was re-used with another group years later. I loved bringing in NPCs from the previous campaign and presenting "history" that happened to the other characters to the new group.
OP:
Its obvious to all, including yourself, that you're in the wrong group. I have to say though that switching GMs is a fine idea though. take this time to be the kind of player you want the others too be. Set up another game and meet some new players. You won't be cheating on your group if you do. Having another outlet will alleviate a lot of your frustration.
A few years back I took it upon myself to be my groups' record keeper. We have always had a player keep track of the party loot, but this seemed like o much more useful a role. Every session I write a page or two about our exploits. Its not an exhaustive effort, but I mention places we go, combats we have, significant events, people we talk to, details I think important at the time. But I do not take responsibility for every detail. I consider a memory jogger for the others and something enjoyable for myself. There is literally not enough time for me to both record every detail and stay involved in the game. The details are a bit biased as a result, but I make an effort to mention something specific each character did in each entry. At the beginning of each session I read the events of the previous session, and it does a pretty good job of reminding everyone (including me) of where we are in the campaign, and what we were in the middle of doing.
It also serves as a resource to know how many sessions we have had, the dates of the sessions, when we leveled up, names of "insignificant " NPCs from way back, and a slew of other things we can't reliably keep track of.
|
|
Thanks for all the advice and encouragement, everybody. It's exactly what I needed.
Like I said, I don't intend to completely abandon GMing. Maybe one day I'll find a group that enjoys character development and big storyline arcs. For now, I'll take the advice of enjoying Pathfinder as a PC for a while. Although I suspect ub3r n3rd's warnings of not "meshing" as a PC will come true, too, and that my time with this group has a very definite expiration date. Our first session is on Monday -- we'll see how it goes. ;)
Also, I haven't given up on my homebrew campaign. I may resurrect it one day for a new group that shows interest in it. Making rules up front (ala bfobar's "no cell phones at the game table") will probably be in order, though.
Vincent, The Prize is not yet yours! My campaign has not been fully decapitated... yet! I'm always happy to share my ideas.
|
|
OP:
Its obvious to all, including yourself, that you're in the wrong group. I have to say though that switching GMs is a fine idea though. take this time to be the kind of player you want the others too be. Set up another game and meet some new players. You won't be cheating on your group if you do. Having another outlet will alleviate a lot of your frustration...
Just saw this post, Ciaran. Thanks for the encouragement. I think being the record-keeper might help me, but I'm going to defer everything to the new GM for now. I'm still feeling a bit furious and vindictive, and I'm not sure I can write anything objective about the group right now! But maybe down the line I can quell my anger and jump back into it.
I do plan on finding a new group to GM for. The inner storyteller in me isn't satisfied remaining idle.
I wanted to simply say to remember Rule 0, are people having fun? If all of the players are getting together each week, laughing at the table, socializing, showing each other funny internet videos while playing a game together, job well done.
I know, that sounds silly, but remember the game is there to provide a means of hanging out and having fun. You and the players aren't there to serve the game, the game is there to serve you.
It sounds like you ran a much more serious game than your players wanted, and there was a mismatch there. The real problem is that YOU were not having fun, and so you got burned out. That's a tougher thing to fix, because you and your players seem so far apart on what you consider a "proper" game of pathfinder (rp and story heavy vs. some combat and laughs). I think even as a player, you may find yourself unhappy with how the other players are not "getting into the story enough" or not "taking things seriously".
I don't know if you can find a happy balance in your current group, but it sounds like you are swimming against the tide. A different rule-set, perhaps D&D 4.0, might suit the play-style of your group better.
For what its worth though, the best solution is for you to find a group that enjoys Pathfinder the same way you do.
|
|
I wanted to simply say to remember Rule 0, are people having fun? If all of the players are getting together each week, laughing at the table, socializing, showing each other funny internet videos while playing a game together, job well done.
I know, that sounds silly, but remember the game is there to provide a means of hanging out and having fun. You and the players aren't there to serve the game, the game is there to serve you...
Hmmm, I slightly disagree. Sure, Pathfinder (and all group RPGs) are social games, and the new GM of our group pointed that out to me. However, if we want to just get together, watch videos, have beers, and crack jokes, let's just plan on getting together to watch videos, have beers, and crack jokes, and leave Pathfinder out of it. I'm cool with hanging out with these guys, but I shouldn't be spending egregious amounts of time preparing material for them if they don't want to explore it.
You're right, though, the main problem is the mismatch. They may enjoy D&D 4.0, but even in using that rule set I would find myself attempting to craft stories that they simply don't care about.
Suffice to say, I have very, very low expectations for our first session on Monday. I will admit I'm housing some vitriol and built my Inquisitor in such a way that will irritate them. They're expecting me to bring in a "healing" role, but I built my PC with the Repose domain who is insistent that death is natural and will most likely refuse to stabilize or heal anybody. Heh heh.
I know that may sound extreme but you will probably turn your back on the hobby if things stay as they are.
You're absolutely right, strayshift. I don't expect my current gaming group to last much longer. The irony here is that I'm actually the glue that holds the group together -- they all know each other through me. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the group if and when I bow out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you should play with a different group online over Skype and MapTool? I'm sure you got lots of online buddies.
Been there, Crank.
As an OG, I can tell you that groups evolve, players evolve, relationships between friends evolve as you go through your 20's, your 30's and your 40's, and people have school, jobs, careers, kids. You make time for one another. Enjoy the time you DO have together.
So many distractions these days. Laptops and smart phones just make it so EASY to remove onesself from the room. I still think it's pretty rude to tune-out when at a game table. I don't allow it when I'm GM'ing. When I use a laptop, I lean the screen towards me to demonstrate that I'm paying attention to the game.
Let it be said that gaming is a SOCIAL experience. Avoid writing treatises and bibles. Ultimately, it's all about hanging with friends and experiencing and brainstorming these wacky fantasy worlds we love.
Enjoy being a PC for a while. Let someone else have the headache. Haha.
I may be alone in this but I developed a rather mercenary view of my Roleplaying.
I can enjoy a rewarding game with a bunch of guys I dont know or like but gaming with a bunch of guys I do like doesnt necessarily make for a good game.
When I game, expecially GM, my focus is on the game itself and even more directly, the action "in game", the story if you will.
Such things as the OP mentioned really upset me and I dont put up with it long. Ill suggest nicely that we simply suspend the game and enjoy some fellowship and hang out and leave the game for a time when our minds are in the right place. If a particular player cant seem to ever reach that place, typically I dont invite him anymore.
The very notion of a table full of laughing, joking, video browsing, snack eating (We dont eat at our table) and generally messing around players is a nightmare Ive had to endure but not by choice and I try very hard to avoid.
To each his own I suppose. Those players that agree with me appreciate the serious nature of our gaming environment and enjoy the experience.
I always use the poker analogy:
Four guys sit down Saturday night and all pay the $25 buy-in.
One guy sits down to play because he doesn't really get any time away from work/wife/kids, and this is his one chance a week for some social time. He doesn't really care if he wins or loses, or even what he's doing; he's just happy to get away for an evening.
One guy is there to win the money. He doesn't care who he plays with. He doesn't play for fun. He doesn't play for the glory of winning. Winning means payday, and that's his driving goal to play and win.
One guy thinks he's the best player at the table, and he wants to prove it. He wants to win for the glory. He doesn't care who he plays with, or if the buy-in is $5 or $500. If he loses, he doesn't care about the money; he cares that somebody beat him.
One guy really really loves the game. He'd rather spend his free time playing poker than doing anything else. It doesn't matter to him who he plays with, what the buy-in is, or even whether he wins or loses. At the end of the night, he's just happy to have spent that night playing.
~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, this is all for example purposes. In reality, most players are a blend of all four examples with a focus on one of them. And that goes for Pathfinder players as well. It's important to have a grasp of what a players' primary goal is for the evening. Are they there to RP? Are they there to roll dice? Are they there to visit? Are they there to laugh and drink beer? All of these are valid options. Just like any relationship, the goal is to match level-of-commitment.
I agree to a point but I don't comply with the notion that the GM is there for the players only, that he/she has to amend their playing style and game to fit them. Its his/her game after all and they should enjoy it to.
I realize of course that if you disagree with the how the game should go with all of your players, you may not have a game unless you conform. That's a decision one would have to make then. Ill bend a little, but Ive also just canceled a campaign for lack of the right chemistry.
|
I feel your plight and went through that a few years ago.
I hang and game "lightly" with my old high school mates.
I power game with those friends that share that itch.
2 different styles simply because I have somewhat diverse associates and I accept them each for their differences, but it took some time and frustration to get there...
|
|
I sympathize with your plight as well.
Another life ago in high school I had two groups of gamin buddies. one was all about the RP.. we sometimes we a full weekend without a single combat. The other group was dive into the dungeon as get as much loot, kill as much stuff, sometimes each other.
The I joined the Navy. No more of the oldest rpg I thought for a few years. I was wrong. within a week of being stationed at Groton for school, I had an offer from a gal I met at the base bar I could join her table.
What I thought chicks game? Well I said sure better then nothing. It was an amazing game for a couple years. I have a 2e human that is 20 fighter 20 wizard 20 cleric and 5 rogue. It was crazy, she was running basically a divine ascension type game.. we were polmats, or polygots I don't remember which of the paths it was called back then.
Got out friends are playing RIFTS. What the heck is this.. a % based game. ok whatever. I play. its fun. more role than roll. brother imposed a rule that you couldn't increase a skill or ability when you level if you don't use it. it helped to show the hack and slashers that skills are another form of combat as he would give us extra ones based on what we did in the story., or didn't do.
Then I moved to milwauke from the twin cities. No games again.. I hit up every hobby shop and just kinda ask around. I got pointed to this website of local gamers.. just a yahoo group it was. I found about 8 tables in there that needed another player or two (was dating a gal that wanted to play also). All of them sucked it was all hack and slash.
The best was one time I rolled 30 on a history check (we started at 5th full wbl) This is what I discovered
u lrn stuf
I went outside a few minutes later for a smoke with my dice, I never went back inside.
It took me six months of that crap, to finally find table that i was a good fit for.
That's where my namesake Klokk was born a 2e dwarf fighter a Clansdwarf of a clan that were both miners and smiths.
Fast Forward to now, 12 years later. That dwarf is a 20 sorcorer, 20 articer, 20 dragondiciple, 8 fighter and 1 rogue- Hes a bloody age 12 dragon. That journey has been truly epic.. even adding play by email and vent/Skype over the years as i moved back to mn and others of that table spread across the country.
When i came back here some of our buddies were still in the military or away at college so we merged two tables. one Roleplayers one Rollplayers. that was 7 years ago last week.
We have played 2e,1e,3.x,4e,rogue trader, couple different star wars.
The roll players love my stories when i DM. I make heavy use of HeroQuest and Decent miniatures as well as little faces i print out for the monsters and size to fit the decent tiles i am using for dungeon maps. When they can actually see that there is a table or desk or bookshelf in the room, and not just hear it, they have started to think outside the dungeon. Two of them are running a 2e game, that i put my Wrath of the Righteous game on hold for..., but they are doing a splendid job at their first attempt ever of a roleplaying mini-campaign. Next week was when i was to take back the Wrath.. but i said we could wait a couple weeks if they wanted. Wow were they excited.
One of the guys in this thread put out a feeler that i found bout a local table. Im looking forwards to it, even talked my brother that ran that rifts game into coming, From what ive read of a few random posts of his that caught my eye, he seems to be my kind of gm, hope he will change his mind about the no overreaching arc or shapeshifting or crazy weird "bosses" or villans. I went a tad over in my background.. i tend to do that, but maybe it will inspire him to something for the tale for the others or help them to see outside the crunch some more.
When i am at the table, i speak only in character unless i say someone's real name to them first. Kinda bugs the Rollplayers i game with usually but so what.. we aint supposed to "know" any of the meta or table talk.. so its my way of counteracting that.
TL: If you didn't read the above.
All i am saying is it gets better man, or woman or whatever ya are.
|
|
Hey everybody. Thanks again for all the encouragement and advice. I figured I'd let you know how the session went earlier this week.
Immediately I missed being GM. I caught myself doing several "former GM" no-nos, like correcting the current GM on the way certain things "should" happen or incidentally meta-gaming (I know lots of features of lots of different monsters).
But I did feel good in the sense that I was able to fill the "rules lawyer" role at the table and free the GM up for more important things. Never figured I'd be that good at it, but I've had to know the rules inside and out as GM at this table because most of the players either don't make an effort to understand them or don't care to understand them. In fact, I just realized during this session that our wizard was casting the same spell multiple times without using up the spell slot... yeesh. So it's a chance for me to get some players back on track.
Since I'm not a fan of getting off topic for too long, I immediately assumed the role of party leader and the other players had to either pay attention or lose track of what was happening. (How unfair that I don't have a player like this at my table!)
The new GM isn't as good at keeping things moving (he's a little rusty) and loves loves LOVES random encounters. Any time we camped, traveled, or moved about a dungeon, he was rolling for random encounters. Kinda tedious, but I don't mind. I made it clear to the other players that his GM style was quite different than mine, and at a break they were telling me how much more they appreciate my GM style (oh, the irony!).
I do miss designing encounters and thinking up quests for these guys, and I'm tempted to take over again. But that would be unfair to everybody involved, and I feel that would just be falling into a trap -- within a few sessions, I'm sure I would feel just as discouraged as before.
Anyway, thanks again for all the kind words and encouragement. I'm feeling better about the situation already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just read the first few posts, it does sound like most of the players just want to hang out and don't really care what the activity is. You could definitely play games that don't take prep time and have fun with these guys.
|
|
Just read the first few posts, it does sound like most of the players just want to hang out and don't really care what the activity is. You could definitely play games that don't take prep time and have fun with these guys.
That's what I'm starting to think. Maybe just run sessions that have four loosely-tied encounters. Maybe a social, a battle, a puzzle, and a "final" battle. It would encourage all the dice-rolling and miniature-moving they want while letting me create a story.
Another bit worth mentioning, which was mentioned before briefly...
Pathfinder Society is really good for meeting new gamers. Sure, the campaign is very combat-oriented and hack-and-slash, but the episodic nature means that you're not signing up for a full-on campaign with the people at your table. So, if you attend a few local Pathfinder Society events, your strategy could be to pick out and approach the gamers you would want to GM for, then start a homegame with them.
-Matt knows, as he's in a great Jade Regent group due to PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just read the first few posts, it does sound like most of the players just want to hang out and don't really care what the activity is. You could definitely play games that don't take prep time and have fun with these guys.That's what I'm starting to think. Maybe just run sessions that have four loosely-tied encounters. Maybe a social, a battle, a puzzle, and a "final" battle. It would encourage all the dice-rolling and miniature-moving they want while letting me create a story.
I'll tell you what Rotating Lever, that's EXACTLY what I've come to realize about my own gaming group. I personally am the kind of GM that wants to craft compelling, epic worlds and fictions, but my players are the type that like venting about work, cracking jokes, and occasionally paying attention to the game. Their idea of plot is the paragraph-long setup to a Descent scenario.
We've found a good compromise in 5-room dungeons like what you're talking about. I tell a condensed but still occasionally epic tale, they have more than enough time to unwind, and we all walk away winners.
These same players all seem to enjoy megadungeons. This makes it easy on me since their "5-room dungeon" scenarios can all be fit into the same general site in the game world. Every so often for variety I send them on a mission somewhere else or craft an off-formula adventure, but this is most of my games.
The cherry on top for me is that I get to string together the different adventures into a meandering narrative. Adventure 1: the PCs rescue some victims from a dungeon cell. Adventure 2: the party goes back to the dungeon for a magic sword. Adventure 3: the rescued victims ask the party's help cleansing a nearby shrine of evil.
Turns out the shrine was tainted in the first place when the sword was stolen. The PCs return the sword and cleanse the shrine. This in turn awakens draconic power in one of the rescued victims who now remains in place at the shrine. She now acts like a rest-stop for the next few dungeon delves and the draconic shrine-keeper can provide resources for future games. Everyone wins!
Your players sound disrespectful and have no appreciation for the time and energy you put into GMing. I wouldn’t put up with that for a second. You’re damn right someone else can GM, soon they will know what it’s like (a lot of work).
All cell phones and mobile devices should be turned off or rarely used during a session. I would kick someone from the table if that happened more than occasionally. Slows down the game, ruins it for everyone, and shows disrespect. If someone wants to talk on their cell phone, go ahead, but not at my table.
I think the real problem is you’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The GM wants something different than the players. They want a beer and pretzels game, you want immersion.
In addition, maybe they are better off just playing a board game (Pathfinder Adventure Card Game?).
The most shocking part of this story is that you lasted 6 years. I wouldn’t last 6 hours with that.
If they want to continue playing Pathfinder, I suggest that you look into Pathfinder Society (PFS). All scenarios are one shot games (4-6 hours), needing minimal GM preparation, so the GM can prepare for a few hours and run a good game. Low time commitment. And the scenarios are generally high quality. So even if the gaming group falls apart (or not everyone can attend on a given night... or people are late), everyone is still getting something out of it. Also, it’s a lot easier to swap players in and out, or go to conventions with a PFS character you’ve been working on.
Personally, I would never start a campaign without doing PFS first. I did PFS for 2 years, found the right people (people went in and out), and now everything is cool. Without (low commitment) PFS to help buffer those changes, things wouldn’t have worked out. I’ve also enjoyed playing and GMing PFS at conventions and has made me a better player and GM.
Anyway, good luck. I suggest find a local PFS group and attending as a player (I think Denver has a really good community). And then consider GMing for them when you’ve recovered. I think you'll like it a lot.
That's what I'm starting to think. Maybe just run sessions that have four loosely-tied encounters. Maybe a social, a battle, a puzzle, and a "final" battle. It would encourage all the dice-rolling and miniature-moving they want while letting me create a story.
That's almost exactly what most PFS scenarios are like.
Good luck!
My year-and-a-half epic campaign came to a screeching halt. All the NPCs they had interacted with are gone, my 44,000 word campaign bible I set up for them is now utterly worthless, and the three major campaign arcs I designed were reduced to ash in mere seconds.
Believe when I say I sympathize with your situation - having a group so incompatible with your own play style (and seemingly unwilling to engage the game on even the most basic levels i.e. paying attention) just sucks.
I do want to draw some attention to the part I bolded above. Please tell me you didn't plunk 44 000 words of campaign background on these guys and expect them to read all (or even any) of it. This goes beyond even just your group - I can't think of any group of players I have GMed or played with in the past 30 years ever reading something like that for any campaign in any game system. Admit that you wrote that for yourself and you might feel a bit better about it - it is hardly 'worthless' as any GM will tell you. Maybe you just started out too big (a common misstep for 'new' GMs, I know you've been doing it for 6 years but ime that just barely gets you out of the first learning stages - even after 3 decades I'm still learning how to make games more fun and engaging).
*When* you go back to GMing (and don't think for a second that you won't - it's like a fever in your blood sometimes and you'll always go back to it) that 44 000 word 'bible' is going to serve as the catalyst of new adventures and campaigns. But it is for you - even the most engaged, enthusiastic player would balk at reading all of it before playing. Keep it small - a starting town, a few adventure leads and some nebulous references to the wider world and do it *in game*. Talking to the players through an NPC about 'ancient ruins filled with treasure and the guardians of the dead Lich King' in a smoke filled tavern is much more interesting than having them read a 5 page synopsis of the Lich King's kingdom of Gobblygooker and all the neato, horrible things it did a thousand years ago.
Best of luck Crank - I really hope you get over this set back quickly and come out swinging for the fences again - good GMs are really hard to come by!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, regarding homebrew, because of my age and the fact that I’ve been playing for 35 years, I’ve had more negative experiences with it than positive.
1) Homebrew campaigns have always felt railroadier than pre-made campaigns. The GMs always THINK they’re not, but they are. Their favorite NPCs always put us in our place and the only solutions that work to solve problems are ones the GM has already thought of.
Several homebrew campaigns fell apart before they began because “we were doing it wrong”. I’m pretty sure the GM put anywhere from 40-300 hours into the campaign and yes, many of them fell apart in 1 session and almost all fell apart in 10 sessions, either because we got stuck or “we did it wrong” or followed a storyline he didn’t anticipate. And the sad part is that we tried our best and weren’t even trying to break the campaign. Railroad!
2) Having a huge campaign bible isn’t always a good thing. What I mean is, you’re definitely running the campaign YOU want to run, but it might not be the campaign the players want to run. I had one GM who did this and it can get very… narcissistic. The campaign was more about him (and his plans) than us. Huge turn off. Yes, we played it for months, but it wasn’t good (for me the player).
Please contrast that to the GM who gives their players 15 campaign options (including adventure paths) to choose from. The players and GM compromise on the campaign that everyone wants to play. A much better experience for the players imo.
3) GMs who homebrew always think their campaigns are better than pre-made campaigns, but they’re not. The quality is never as good compared to a pre-made campaign with GM adding and modifying the material. GMs can still “homebrew” the campaign to personalize it to their tastes and the player’s tastes, but this is always in addition to what already exists, there’s already a base.
Anyway, I won’t play in a homebrew campaign anymore. I’ll play (or run) in an AP that has homebrew elements in it (personalization is GREAT!), but 100% homebrew. No way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with most of what Jason posted above.
I always use my homebrew setting (and have been using it for 37 years)
I never use NPC's of a level higher than the current Player Character's in my games with those characters (most of my games are begun in areas that have no more than a third level NPC "somewhere" that the PCs have some knowledge about, but hardly interact with)
An NPC, in one of my games, has never rescued a party of adventures
I do not "run" campaigns - I present to the players a setting, the players decide what happens next
Any homebrew setting has the potential to be as good as or better than any pre made campaign setting, preference is the key (beauty is in the eye of the beholder)
My favorite kind of game is one where the setting begins as almost a blank canvas and then the world of the characters is built by the play of the game.
My favorite kind of game is one where the setting begins as almost a blank canvas and then the world of the characters is built by the play of the game.
I get behind this line of thought. That's how my current game world is - started with only the barest details, and the players and I have built things around them and beyond in the years since.
It's less my setting and more my group's setting, we've all had input in one place or another.
You sound a lot like how I was feeling at the end of last Summer. The best move for me was to bite the bullet, go to a meet-up (at Meetup.com or some such) and meet some other people and start building a table more to my tastes. It is now a mix of some of my old gamers and new gamers. It has been going pretty well and we have been fun playing a game more to my style. I am looking for someone else who is willing to GM, so that I can take a break or our roleplaying opportunities don't go away if something happens to me.
I disagree with most of what Jason posted above.
I do not "run" campaigns - I present to the players a setting, the players decide what happens next
Either your players know you or know your homebrew well, because this never works for me, and I've tried it several times. I've even done it with friends I've known for several years now.
The last time I tried it, I presented my players with the following:
- the city of Dunspar and it's hinterlands (including a few interesting places)
- Luniev, the Inquisitor of Pharasma
- the general atmosphere of the region: superstitious, foreboding; a sort of Dark Fairy Tale theme
I then sat back and said "Ok, what do you do?" My players looked at me as if I'd grown a second head. I didn't have ANY plot hooks or anything, just a setting and they had no idea what to do. Eventually they asked me (not NPCs in the game, but me) if there were any dungeons in the area and intoned that they really wanted a megadungeon. I'd talked about some ruins in my setting (but only in a cursory passage) so I suggested they investigate that. It took that entire first game session to get them to start, and even then my players needed me to guide them to the plot hook.
I find that when I just drop players into a setting and cut them completely loose with no context, they don't really know what's going on. Now, if I were running Golarion; say, Darkmoon Vale, they could grab my book on the place and say "Oh, there's an evil druid faction in the woods. Let's go wail on them." but the same druid faction, put into a homebrew, and the players don't bite.
My theory is its because in a homebrew everything is made up by the GM, so that plot hook could be anything and lead anywhere. But players are deceived into thinking that in a pre-made campaign everything's there for a purpose; everything fits together. They wouldn't start you in Sandpoint if it wasn't level 1 material that leads you somewhere.
I don't know, maybe this is just me and my experience. I just find that, in homebrewing I have to be more explanatory and hands on. In a pre-made setting and campaign the players somehow feel more in control and thus more confident to simply explore.
The entire point of what I wrote is to make homebrew GMs understand that their homebrew campaign isn’t always what people want to play. It’s not personal, for example you made a pirate homebrew world and I hate pirates. It’s called a different perspective. And it seems like I’m the perfect one to tell you, because chances are your players won’t.
I disagree with most of what Jason posted above.
Yes, those are only my experiences and I don’t expect many homebrew GMs to agree with it. Consider this player feedback. Most players are just happy playing *something* and won’t tell you otherwise.
The common denominator is that everyone thinks their homebrew world is better than it is, and it’s not necessarily the campaign that everyone wants to play. I’d strongly prefer a GM that homebrews stuff on top of an AP (and alters it) than write everything from scratch.
I do not "run" campaigns - I present to the players a setting, the players decide what happens next
“Running a campaign” is a common term and you’re running a campaign whether you’re running a homebrew sandbox or not.
Any homebrew setting has the potential to be as good as or better than any pre made campaign setting
It’s true, some of the best custom material is easily better than adventure paths. This is why APs should be customized. But then again, some homebrew has also been much worse than even the worst AP. Swings both ways, and sometimes in the same campaign.
Pet Peeve: With homebrew I find the GMs ego is involved more than normal, especially with regards to his “pet NPCs”. You see, much more ego is involved when you’re the writer, it’s human nature.
My favorite kind of game is one where the setting begins as almost a blank canvas and then the world of the characters is built by the play of the game.
Again, not for everyone, maybe when I was a teenager. I don’t have much time and I don’t want to just meander through my game. I don’t want a soap opera; I want a fully featured movie.
I don’t want to derail this thread any further, it’s clear we have different perspectives and my job here was to give the OP a different perspective. A lot of the time the GM can’t see that his homebrew isn’t always what is desired. I hope Crank gets to the bottom of the problem eventually.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason, as a GM who runs campaigns exclusively in my own custom campaign world, let me respond.
1. If a player doesn't want to play in my world, that's fine. I don't want to run a published module, so it works out for both of us. They can find another game with another GM, and I might even join them.
2. So far I've never had a single player in over three decades say "nah, I don't want to play in your campaigns anymore." Quite the reverse in fact.
3. When you say "everyone thinks their homebrew world is better than it is" do you recognize that you are making not only a blanket generalization, but that it is an insulting and condescending one to boot?
4. You constantly refer to the homebrew issue of "pet NPCs." I am assuming you mean NPCs that overshadow the party and steal their spotlight, not NPCs that provide a challenge. Assuming that is true, I am very sorry that you have had to play in the homebrews you have if that's how they are run. I have an ironclad rule in my own games, well more than one, but THIS ironclad rule is "no GM run "PC" will steal the spotlight from the players." When I do introduce a GM PC (which is rare) that character is always no more powerful than the least powerful PC in the party, and is generally deliberately less powerful.
5. You repeatedly state that homebrew campaigns are an exercise in GM ego. Of course they are. Most creative efforts require an ego, because it's a lot of hard work and that sort of thing doesn't happen without an ego. Sometimes that ego drives someone to a greater effort and a more creative result.
Finally, you do realize that all those commercial products are created the same way for the most part. The difference is exactly the same as any other professional vs amateur effort. Frequently those professionals became professionals because they were amateurs whose egos drove them to such levels of creativity and quality that their gamer friends said "dude, you should totally do this for money."
The entire point of what I wrote is to make homebrew GMs understand that their homebrew campaign isn’t always what people want to play. It’s not personal, for example you made a pirate homebrew world and I hate pirates. It’s called a different perspective. And it seems like I’m the perfect one to tell you, because chances are your players won’t.
I disagree with most of what Jason posted above.Yes, those are only my experiences and I don’t expect many homebrew GMs to agree with it. Consider this player feedback. Most players are just happy playing *something* and won’t tell you otherwise.
The common denominator is that everyone thinks their homebrew world is better than it is, and it’s not necessarily the campaign that everyone wants to play. I’d strongly prefer a GM that homebrews stuff on top of an AP (and alters it) than write everything from scratch.
I do not "run" campaigns - I present to the players a setting, the players decide what happens next“Running a campaign” is a common term and you’re running a campaign whether you’re running a homebrew sandbox or not.
Any homebrew setting has the potential to be as good as or better than any pre made campaign settingIt’s true, some of the best custom material is easily better than adventure paths. This is why APs should be customized. But then again, some homebrew has also been much worse than even the worst AP. Swings both ways, and sometimes in the same campaign.
Pet Peeve: With homebrew I find the GMs ego is involved more than normal, especially with regards to his “pet NPCs”. You see, much more ego is involved when you’re the writer, it’s human nature.
My favorite kind of game is one where the setting begins as almost a blank canvas and then the world of the characters is built by the play of the game.Again, not for everyone, maybe when I was a teenager. I don’t have much...
1: since the players vote on which campaign concept to run or request one, I don't see how that's an issue?
2: like ad, in a bit over two decades, I haven't had this happen once. Generally, especially if you have the same players, you tweak the direction of the campaign to keep them interested. It's called paying attention to your friends and it usually works pretty well.
3: I think its precisely as 'good' as the people playing in it think it is, because, really, isn't that he point? A homebrew can be more specialized and appeal more strongly to a narrower slice of preferences where a published setting is generally going to cast a wider net to try to catch everyone and reel in, naturally, as many sales as possible.
4: you really think the issue of pet npcs doesn't come up in published settings? You think that people using published material just used published npcs and don't bring anything else in? Really?
5: So is creating a character not also an exercise in personal ego?
I ran a 3.5 Forgotten Realms campaign with my current group for approximately 6 years, 2nd level to 16th level, 2002 to 2008. Campaign timeline here (doesn't include final abyssal adventure). After a major journey into the Abyss to rescue the good-aligned succubus lover of one of the characters along with having seeded the campaign with 3 major plot points for the PCs to explore after the abyss adventure in addition to several other minor plots, in the post-abyss session I asked the players what they wanted to do, which hook they wanted to explore or if they wanted to explore something else. They all responded with either "I don't know," or mundane "live-a-normal-life."
So I ended the campaign. If, after 6 years of working on major and minor plots, focusing on the group and the individuals, none of the players felt empowered or interested enough to take some initiative...then I failed as a DM and it was time to end the campaign. Which I did. I wrote up a lengthy post-campaign timeline of "If the PCs decided to to X then..." and called it quits.
It's not a fun moment. It's emotionally damaging. But ultimately I blame the DM, myself. It's up to me to wrangle them; to focus and herd the rabid carnivorous cattle we call players. I let my ego get hurt and so I quit. Instead, I could have given the players a week with a well-worded speech or email saying "So, I need some help here, I've laid out plot points. Are you all not interested in the campaign anymore or do you just need some down time to figure out what to do next?"
Our other DM embraced 4th edition for a year, after which we decided we liked 3.5 better and switched to Pathfinder.
Since 1999 I've been slowly working on my own homebrew campaign world and about a year and a half ago my group asked me to run again so I started using my campaign world for the first time and created a 200+ page PDF campaign book for them to use. The introduction reads as;
"Welcome to Agrros Guleth, a world in which its peoples struggle in the shadows of former empires brought low. It is a world where racism, and species-ism, divides cities, instigate wars, and propels commerce. It is a dark world, very much like Earth in the Middle Ages shortly after the fall of Rome, though governed as much by magic as by religion and science. The Xek Gotau, the Empire, exists only in name in the eastern lands of the southern continent Nemerith, and in the west it is more often cursed. The northern continent of Khormadal is largely untouched by the great Empire, a land of exiles and the lost.
Why another campaign setting? Honestly, because I feel that no other setting is good enough. Or rather, no other setting is suited to fit my tastes perfectly. And my tastes seek out a blend of science, religion and magic that has an Earth-like realism mixed with a cup of its own social and physical evolutions, with a touch of the fantastic and a pinch of the macabre. I need a campaign setting that makes a fair amount of reasonable sense, not a hodge-podge gumbo of various Earth-specific social elements boiled together with a heavy handed use of magical inconsistencies and non-scientific science statements. My desire is to create, to the best of my ability, a world that lives and breathes for the reader and for the player.
So what should you, the player, take from Agrros Guleth? Or what does Agrros Guleth wish to take from you? Comfort. You should feel a level of tension, a state of being continually uncomfortable, when engaged in the campaign setting. These tensions arise from many aspects of the setting: moral ambiguities within the various societies; threat of arising social instability verse voices for social change; the use of power, whether political, martial, magical or otherwise; civilization verse naturalism; and the constant threat of demonic, undead, and ancient forces with the power to destroy cities, gods, and the individual characters lurking just beyond the horizon are to name but a few of these tensions. You should, at least on some level, feel at the same time both enabled to affect your surroundings as well as being powerless, which of those two layers, or neither or both, that your character chooses to believe in is left to you and your character.
Of course, you should have fun in being uncomfortable. The enjoyment comes from finding ways to pull some amount of comfort or security (however illusionary) from the world through the actions of your character."
This introduction is meant to specifically address what to expect from me as a DM. And after a year and a half of play-testing with the Pathfinder rules...it's working. They continue to want to play, but they often complain of having nightmares of the previous game sessions. If I'm infesting their subconscious dreams with the events in game...I call that a success (and laugh manically at that), hehe.
But the DM still has to wrangle the players. One player is overly focused on random conversation and non-adventure social encounters. Another is overly focused on his own pc creation software. Another is distracted by facebook and dating sites. Another is overly concerned about not imposing his own commanding personality over the other players (even though after 10+ years of gaming together they expect either him, or me if I'm a player, to take the lead and make decisions). And the last, but not least, is distracted by high-school friends' texts while been sheepish around playing with all 35+ year olds, one of which is her father. They interrupt each other, talk over each other, loose focus when it's not their turn, and so on.
But are they still the greatest group of gamers I've every played with? Yes they are. But is it still my responsibility as the DM to let go of my ego and both guide the story while wrangling the players from the real world into the fantasy...yes it is.
And ultimately, if my players we're far more interested in just hanging out than playing a game then I would have to let go my greater desire to game. Which, I think if that were to happen, I would ultimately say something along the lines of, "look, I really really really love playing game. If you guys aren't that interested, that's okay, let's hang out on X, Y, or Z nights. But I want to game, and I'm going to set aside night A to game and if you actually want to focus on and be present for a role-playing session on that night then let me know and I'll start looking for other players who feel the same."