As it seems like you have the willingness to solve the problem, might I suggest just saying that you're not digging it (give the other players and the GM a patsy) and suggest that you guys try something else. Usually no one wants to be the one to end the campaign, but if someone else suggests it and says their not having fun, they will go along with it without feeling like their "killing the fun for everyone else".
This has happened in our game group maybe a handful of times, usually when one of the newer GMs tries to run a more elaborate or sandbox style adventure path.
|
Ask the other players if they want to finish "Giantslayer" (which is the second-worst AP imo, Book 1 & 2 are cool but then it goes slowly downhill).
If they don´t, tell the GM that all of you don´t like the endless giant slaying and would rather play something in Korvosa (CotCT HC?) and that it´s not his playstyle you don´t like, but the AP (which really isn´t great). ;-)
You can check out a lot of GM Guides in Guide to Guides.
I honestly think GM's just need to stay a session ahead of the players. Maybe flesh out some basic details but really build as you go.
Maybe try an AP where the enemy literally isn't in the name. Add more mystery. (Curse of of the Carrion Throne is a no for the same reason... Probably even worse)
I haven't played Skulls and Shackles but I don't really know what the enemies are going to be, and it sounds like it might have more stealth rewards. (I think)
Nothing wrong with adding sidequests for fun. You can lower XP for encounters to allow for them. I feel it makes the game a lot more personal and meaningful to the players.
Oh yeah, and no one said GM'ing was easy. It's like writing, but instantaneous judgment. No one just breezes through it. As long as you stay optimistic, keep trying, and keep having fun (which is the issue here) then you should all be good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell him a good GM runs a campaign where everyone is having fun. If at least 2 players (plus the GM!) are not having fun, changes need to be made. A good GM is flexible and follows the players' leads.
Completing a Path shouldn't be a Feat of Strength. This isn't Festivus. If you all don't like the Path, you all don't like the Path and should play a different one.
It's supposed to be a fun hobby, not powering through mind-numbing paperwork.
This is partly the problem. I did speak with him and suggest maybe we should hang it up and start anew. But in his mind that is akin to saying he's a bad GM. I'm hoping the other players manage to find their voices and present a concerted case.
My group tends to see me as the mediator during conflicts, so he basically wants to hear it from everyone else before he decides, because I am "speaking for others".
Make sure you emphasize to him that it's the PATH you don't like. If need be criticize the Path, Paizo, and writers in his hearing so that he gets a real sense that the fact that people aren't having fun isn't his fault. Even if it kinda is because he won't do the extra work required to make it fun. Hopefully if he feels the failures of the path arne't on him, he won't continue to stubborn insist it be finished in order to save face.
Focus should be on path, not DM skills.
The Path was boring as told and organized by Paizo.
No point in playing something he doesn't enjoy, nor the party does. The sooner you end it the faster you can get to that feeling of having fun again!
My first attempt at GM-ing didn't go well. I made my own world, filled it with kingdoms, towns, politics, NPC's, monsters, etc. I wrote the story my PC's would star in. To me, that was all the prep work i'd ever need. And then everything fell apart. There wasn't any one thing that did it, though, admittedly, my railroading was particularly fierce. Two of the players ended up leaving the group. They told me they weren't having fun, and listed several of my failings that were causing it. They did it in a neutral, respectable manner, and although I was still quite upset and hurt, I was able to learn from the experience, and now, about 7 or 8 years later, I'm still GM'ing, and those two players happily play at my table again.
The moral of the story is: no one nails GM'ing on their first try - especially with a table of experienced players - some even fall flat on their face. That doesn't make you a bad GM. It can take a couple years to find your stride, and you may have to can a few campaigns during that time.
What I'm trying to say is don't baby this person - don't put all the blame on the module (though it sounds like that's also part of the problem, so definitely include it). Tell him you're not having fun, and tell him exactly why: HE'S not having fun, and it's causing him to neuter Stealth (you may want to get the Rogue's permission before you make him personally a part of it), and he's not doing the prep work he owes his group as the GM. These problems DON'T make him a bad GM, but they ARE causing several people at the table to not have fun (which is the entire point of the game in the first place). So if he wants to finish the module, he should only do it if he can have fun with it; if he can't do that, he won't be proving his worth as a GM, just his stubbornness.
As his friend, you'd be doing him a disservice by telling him it's all the module's fault. He may become hurt, upset, or even mad, but as long as you do this in a neutral and respectable manner, no rational person would end their friendship over it. If he thinks it's all the module's fault, he won't know he needs to improve himself as a GM (which is a natural progression for ALL GM's), and the next campaign he runs will have all the same problems, and fixing it will become even harder.