Good to hear that the situation has improved for you, Crank. I know I would have gotten a lot more frustrated a lot sooner.
Your friends might be better served playing something like Settlers of Catan on game nights for awhile, a more structured board game that you can pick up and put down.
As for the homebrew vs. AP commentary:
There were a very nice quote in one of my textbooks about writing: "People need maps to your dreams." It was specifically about writing fiction but I think it applies no less (and possibly even more) to homebrew settings.
|
I hadn't realized this thread continued after my last post! And an interesting discussion to boot. First quick update, then some thoughts on the "homebrew vs. pre-written" discussion.
While our gaming group hasn't dissolved entirely, it has suffered quite a bit since my departure from the GM role. The new GM has plopped us into a setting and claimed "it's an open world". Naturally, this brings lots of problems that have been mentioned previously in this thread -- mostly, PCs just don't know what to do without plot hooks. And, unfortunately, our new GM has said multiple times that "you guys weren't supposed to do that!" even after making the claim that "it's an open world". Very different GM styles. I love the guy like my own father, but it's difficult for me to sit and not backseat GM. I've thought about leaving the group entirely, but I don't know anybody else who plays. And yes, the urge to GM again is boiling in my blood.
As for the homebrew discussion, I want to point out a couple things about my own campaign:
- My NPCs never stole the spotlight, and I never had GM PCs. If NPCs ever joined the party, it was to assist with a role they were missing (i.e. a bard to buff or a rogue to help with traps), and I always offered the players to control the NPC first.
- My large campaign bible was never intended to be required reading; instead, it was a reference point so the players would know the major NPCs in the town they started and the world's major religions, etc. Like my Obsidian Portal campaign notes, it went unread.
- I will admit that my emotional attachment to my campaign could have been detrimental, especially to my own self-efficacy after cutting it short.
- I will also admit that the "eternal campaign" was slowly becoming a problem. I had a very definite ending to a major arc that spanned levels 1-10, but afterward found it difficult to focus on a new arc. This certainly contributed to the campaign failure.
It's all a learning experience. Until I can GM again, I'll continue to play and I do intend on attending TactiCon for some PFS games. I also have ideas for a new project -- an actual play podcast using PFS scenarios -- but am a little worried about finding the "right" people to join in.
- My large campaign bible was never intended to be required reading; instead, it was a reference point so the players would know the major NPCs in the town they started and the world's major religions, etc. Like my Obsidian Portal campaign notes, it went unread.
Yup - that would be exactly as I would expect. It is no reflection on you or your writing capability Crank - it is just how many (most?) players are. It isn't even a knock against them either - people just want to play and you'd go a lot further to show the players your campaign world in-game rather than tell them about it from a 'campaign bible'. That bible was for you - and it is an excellent thing to get into the habit of creating. Just don't expect players to be reading any of it.
I see a number of homebrew GMs have responded to me and seem to take the snub personally. It's not personal, they're just my experiences.
The fact that you feel snubbed tells me that your ego is involved (in a negative way), otherwise you'd just listen to my statement and realize that I'm not talking about you; I'm talking about maybe ten GMs total.
Personally I've had enough bad experiences that I won't do 100% homebrew again. The homebrew campaigns I've been involved with have always been more about the GM fulfilling the GM's fantasies than the GM fulfilling my fantasies. Thanks, but I have better things to do with my time.
Less is more. Its true in nearly ALL aspects of life, and it's certainly true in GMing. If you're homebrewing then writing a campaign bible, a manifesto on your game, and a woven web of plots spanning the globe is sadly too much info for your players to take in. As with PW above, this isn't a knock against players. People nowadays are just simply hard-wired to take life in sound bites.
Crank, I'm impressed by your commitment to a product that obviously means a lot to you. I've not read your bible but I'm sure it's awesome. Think of your players' reading and entertainment habits; were they massively into Game of Thrones the novel, the Lord of the Rings series and it's companion errata, and other "bible-like" works? Or instead were they into comics, youtube, movies and tv?
I read on the Alexandrian the other day some old nuggets of wisdom. One of them came in the form of one word: Handouts. Players love em. I'm starting to notice it myself. I rebooted my game with some players who couldn't remember NPCs if I paid them. I stole an idea from another GM and made index cards with the NPCs portraits on them alongside their name and some pertinent details. I threw those on the table and my players suddenly brightened; they KNEW who I was talking about when I referenced the NPCs.
Maps; NPC cards; pictures and 3d terrain. Anything that stimulates the senses rather than the memory. Players seem to respond well to these things in my experience. If you want your players dialed in then, put these things in front of them.
As far as ego goes, that is present any time someone creates something. Its inevitable. Therefore its inevitable that someone will have hurt feelings if their creation is spurned. It's what we DO with those hurt feelings that defines us. Use that passion and grow your skills. We should always be growing toward better versions of ourselves, our writing and our GMing talents.
|
|
I realize you weren't directly talking about me, Jason (and probably still aren't) -- I just wanted to be clear the steps I took to avoid those problems you posed. Of course I'll admit my ego was mildly attached to the campaign. As GMs, we're writers, artists, and actors all at once. It's tough when we have to accept that our work isn't as entertaining as we hoped (or expected!).
Mark, you've got my group pegged. I'm the only one who has read any of the Song of Ice and Fire novels, and the only way any of them would get into it is if they watched the show. And even then it would be quite casual (they're as like to forget the main characters' names in TV shows as they are my campaign). This is a tough imbalance that I'll have to reconcile at some point -- perhaps with the use of adventure modules, paths, PFS scenarios, etc. Or with a complete overhaul of how I approach GMing.
NPC cards are a fantastic idea. I had quite the list of NPCs and their portraits on Obsidian Portal, but it's not accessible during actual gameplay. I think I set my expectations far too high for my players' imaginations and was unable to engage the senses enough to spark whatever imagination they may have had. It's a tough -- but good -- learning experience.
Wow, tough luck there Crank. I used to have the same issue, although it was more of a 'some people were wet blankets that dampened the whole group' issue than an entire group issue.
I've found that, like already mentioned, less is more. Even extending to group size. I find that the roleplay to rollplay ratio changes significantly as the group increases in size. If you'd like a group that focuses on immersing themselves and interacting with the world beyond a combat level, why not get only a small group together? I've found that in larger group, attempts to roleplay get drowned out by OOG chatter of other players or the push to 'get to the next combat' by others.
My current adventure path (RotRL) has gone from 7 players to 3, and I'm probably going to keep it that way (while adding in an NPC that 'fills the gaps' for my players, probably let them choose between Shalelu or Ameiko). The three of them are super excited to jump in, now that they know they aren't being held down by the rollplay expectations of a group of 7.
Wow, Jason, I do feel for you. There is unfortunately a handful of people out there who will use the GM chair to make themselves feel like a god. Although I haven't experienced it yet, I've heard horror stories from my group about other GMs they've had. Just know that not every GM is doing it for the power. Some really do have stories they want to share :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't see this thread the first time around, and it's an interesting read. I certainly sympathize with Crank's OP (and am glad things are going in a decent direction). I recall some of my early attempts at GMing especially coming to a halt in a similar way, and that's especially discouraging to a new GM because certainly they could have been my last (I kept trying, and I am especially grateful for players who sat through my early campaigns for, as there were ones that were more successful in terms of staying together and completing, I was an awful GM. I don't know if I can say if I am a good GM now, but I can say with confidence I am a much better GM than I used to be).
What follows are some general thoughts/lessons I've learned/musings on the frustrations and rewards as a GM. None of the following are to be taken as indications that anyone else is doing it right, doing it wrong, or otherwise that they should do things my way. Largely, these are just ideas and observations based on my personal experience.
First, let me say, I prefer homebrew, and have a homebrew campaign setting I've been developing for over a decade now. That said, I have learned to respect and love the module for saving time and giving me ideas, when needed and desired.
- I have learned to understand my expectations of a game and a player's may be two different things.
- I have learned to understand that what a player says they want and what they demonstrate they want may be two different things. For example, I have had players expound upon how much they love to freeform roleplay and make things up as they go along and help drive the story, only then to sit there quietly during gameplay waiting for me to lead them by the hand through a pre-established plot. I have had self-proclaimed powergamers focused on strategy overtake a session with dramatic roleplay. I have had people say how much they like high level challenges only to run away from every challenge they came across, and people who say they're in it for history and roleplay then complain at the slow rate of XP gain and treasure drops.
- So I have accepted first: you can't please everybody. Second, to check in with players at the beginning and frequently during campaigns to check with them about how they feel things are going. I have told them that "fine" is unacceptable. I have learned to feel brave about asking the question "are you bored"? I learned to feel brave to urge my players to answer that honestly. This has helped me both manage my own expectations as well as my players'.
- When I invite folks to games, I try to be clear about what I am going to do, i.e., "this is a lighthearted, fast-paced dungeon crawl, if you're looking for heavy intrigue, this is not for you." or "This is a really roleplay heavy, political game, if you're looking for a monty haul kick in the door game, this is not for you." If players start playing differently from the tone of the game I have tried to be firm about establishing, I will check in with them. Depending, I might stop the game, I might decide to adapt. For example, once I really wanted to run a politics-heavy sandbox game. While I thought I made this clear to the players, many of them then all acted like, "so where's the dungeon and the loot?" So I chatted with them, many of them were, "You know, I guess I'm not interested in the intrigue really," so I reconfigured the campaign to have more dungeon crawly stuff (while still keeping the politics as a thread through it, just more lightly, for those who were enjoying it). In short: I have to decide whether I am going to adapt or stop it. If the players and I are on totally different wavelengths, I'll probably just stop it, because it's wasting all of our times if I am writing a game the players don't want to play. Luckily for me, I know a large enough pool of gamers I can probably find the type of players i need for the kind of campaign I want to run (and even then I understand I may need to tweak as things go along).
- I have learned the hard way to be a hardassed b&%$+ about attendance and promptness, and my players can accept this or find a different GM. While this is much less of an issue than when I was much younger, I have set up ahead of time clear expectations:
-- You will do your best to show up on time. We usually declare a "doors open time," and a "game start" time. The "game starts" at the stated time regardless of who is there. The "doors open time" usually at least a half hour before "game start" gives people leeway for arrival.
-- I make it clear people not present will be botted by me, and make sure people are okay with that (if they are not, they need to either show up, make other arrangements in advance about what their character is doing, or they need to find another game).
-- Advance notice of being unable is polite and expected -- I'd do it for you, you do it for me. Unexplained, unannounced absences (or very frequent, extreme lateness) are unacceptable; more than two, you leave the game. Period. Real emergencies are of course not an issue--I'm not going to kick you out because you had to go to the emergency room or your child was sick, etc. I am going to kick you out if you didn't show up, repeatedly, with excuses like, "I forgot," "I didn't feel like it," or "I overslept."
-- I will note, STRONGLY, I have not have someone miss a game in YEARS without advance warning and amicable arrangement as to what to do with the player in the absence. Occasional lateness happens, never more than 15 min or so, and usually due to stuff like traffic or other reasonable issues, and the late individual always calls to let me know they're being late. Common courtesy stuff, really. I've only had one person back out of a game because of my attendance policy, and he wasn't hurt about it--it just forced him to be honest with me and himself--"You know what, my schedule really is busy and you're right, if I'm not sure I can make it, then I'm going to bow out so someone else can take a slot who will be able to guarantee they can show up."
- The one thing that frustrates me the most about most of the players I run with is many of them are afraid of taking risks. I don't mean dancing with death, I mean just stuff like opening the dungeon door, even though "there might be something dangerous inside." What especially baffles me about this is I am probably the least lethal GM I know; most of my encounters run on the easy side and there have been very few character deaths in my game history. Encouraging my adventurers to, you know, actually adventure has been my biggest challenge. I've learned to try to invite a good mix of players -- of course the people who aren't the ones who are afraid of mice are the types of players whose PCs willingly jump into dragons' mouths. Trying to find a mix of both so they can both push each other along is the best thing, but ever creating the right incentives to make people want to go along with things (but not rush through the story either) has been a huge challenge for me. Some folks I think just want me to hand them treasure and XP with no adventure whatsoever, and I can't run for people like that anymore.
- The latest game I ran I started with a module that I adapted to my homebrew world, and has now branched out to sandbox. I think I may do this more often. Using the module started with something structured, saved me some time, and allowed me to focus on where my players' interests where. When the text of the module finished, I had a good sense of what kind of players I was working with to help mold the freeform campaign in a way where they might feel most engages. I've also made clear that we are now in sandbox mode and they are going to have to take some things by the reins to make things happen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- I have learned the hard way to be a hardassed b#++@ about attendance and promptness, and my players can accept this or find a different GM. While this is much less of an issue than when I was much younger, I have set up ahead of time clear expectations:
-- You will do your best to show up on time. We usually declare a "doors open time," and a "game start" time. The "game starts" at the stated time regardless of who is there. The "doors open time" usually at least a half hour before "game start" gives people leeway for arrival.
-- I make it clear people not present will be botted by me, and make sure people are okay with that (if they are not, they need to either show up, make other arrangements in advance about what their character is doing, or they need to find another game).
-- Advance notice of being unable is polite and expected -- I'd do it for you, you do it for me. Unexplained, unannounced absences (or very frequent, extreme lateness) are unacceptable; more than two, you leave the game. Period. Real emergencies are of course not an issue--I'm not going to kick you out because you had to go to the emergency room or your child was sick, etc. I am going to kick you out if you didn't show up, repeatedly, with excuses like, "I forgot," "I didn't feel like it," or "I overslept."
-- I will note, STRONGLY, I have not have someone miss a game in YEARS without advance warning and amicable arrangement as to what to do with the player in the absence. Occasional lateness happens, never more than 15 min or so, and usually due to stuff like traffic or other reasonable issues, and the late individual always calls to let me know they're being late. Common courtesy stuff, really. I've only had one person back out of a game because of my attendance policy, and he wasn't hurt about it--it just forced him to be honest with me and himself--"You know what, my schedule really is busy and you're right, if I'm not sure I can make it, then I'm going to bow out so someone else can take a slot who will be able to guarantee they can show up."
Great input, DeathQuaker. I especially like the timeliness and promptness issues you brought up (quoted above). This, too, has been a difficult learning curve for me, and the next time I GM I will adopt your attitude toward it. Lack of promptness from my group heavily contributed to my frustration.
As a group, we agreed to meet at 11 a.m. on Saturdays so we could have the majority of the day to play. Most wouldn't show up until around noon, and then they'd socialize until 1 p.m. One player would occasionally show up at 2 p.m. with good reasoning -- and would let me know ahead of time -- but it contributed to the disarray.
The day that I decided to call it quits was the worst. We didn't gather around the table until 2 p.m., and even then they sat around talking until about 3 p.m. I sat and waited quietly because I was tired of dealing with it. The remainder of the session was filled with tangents and side conversations, and I got so frustrated I was tempted to throw a few Balor Demons their way just to end it all, hahaha.
Next time, I will make my expectations much clearer. It's definitely not mature or polite for them to continually be late, but it's also not fair for me to expect my players to be mind readers.
@Deathquaker - excellent post! Lots of good advice in there that people can take to make their games better. My biggest failing is not getting enough feedback from players as to how they like the game. I often take 'fine' as an answer then see the player sitting there staring off into space or reading a rulebook while 'X' is going on (could be rp, combat whatever). I know not every player can be engaged 100% of the time but when it is the same 1-2 players, every game, who 'check out' mentally I really need to 'get honest' (like you said) with myself and them and find out what needs to change to bring them back into it a little more.
Stuff
Excellent post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a number of homebrew GMs have responded to me and seem to take the snub personally. It's not personal, they're just my experiences.
Well, anytime someone makes absolute statements, other people are going to point out the silliness of it. It would be like if I said I won't play with players who use dragons as their forum avatars because every one has been a terrible player that has ruined my enjoyment of the campaign.
Personally I've had enough bad experiences that I won't do 100% homebrew again. The homebrew campaigns I've been involved with have always been more about the GM fulfilling the GM's fantasies than the GM fulfilling my fantasies. Thanks, but I have better things to do with my time.
So, fulfilling your fantasies is more important that the GM fulfilling theirs? Not only should the GM spend 100x as much time on the campaign as you do, but they should make your enjoyment of the game above that of their own?