| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit it: I'm a bit of an elitist. I have very strong opinions about ttrpg's and what makes a game/session better or worse than others.
But I've tried to lighten up. I've tried to open my perspective a bit and give people outside my old crew a chance.
And...I mean...there were fun little moments. But I spent the majority of the time grinding my teeth or wishing I was elsewhere.
I can understand wanting to offer players as much agency as possible. That's cool. But the less restrictions there are, the more issues there could potentially be with things like pacing.
I don't like being told "there's fun stuff n this game. Go find it." Like. I have such precious little free time nowadays. Can we just skip to the point where we find something fun?
Don't get me wrong. Haggling over told at the inn, drinking contests--they can all be part of the fantasy and discovery and expression. But if we've been playing for 2 hours, I would hope that there's more to it than that.
If I may offer a brief example:
We come into town. The scene is set, but there's nothing inherently interesting as of yet. The GM asks what I do. I figure, I'll find the nearest tavern, get some food and a room and listen for any interesting rumors. I basically put up a big sign that says "PLOT HOOK WELCOME". I learn about some stuff that happened recently, but it's all resolved. Nothing needs to be done. No problems or mysteries present.
Then the GM asks the other five players. None of them seem to have my experience, so they flounder a bit and spend quite a bit of time on a bunch of nothing, and the GM gladly indulges them.
It takes over an hour and a half to get through their what do you do's.
At the end of the day, we pack up and head out again. The GM asks us "which direction do you go?" Um. I don't know. I don't have a map. Or a reason to want to go anywhere in particular. So we just pick a direction at random.
Some trolls ambush us. We fight them and defeat them. It's been three hours, now.
--is this normal? Is this enjoyable to anyone? I'm just so confused, frustrated and disheartened from the experience.
I made a pretty neat character. I asked about the setting and the game, to make sure he fit into them both as well as possible. But I got nothing, so I made a character just full of story seeds and specific motivations and all sorts of stuff. And the GM just...shot it all down or ignored it, and gave us...I don't know. Errands and a bog-standard random encounter. I didn't sign up to play Road Trips & Errands.
Has anyone else run into this? I'm struggling to find a way to tell these guys I'm bored out of my skull without being offensive. It doesn't help that they think the GM is absolutely amazing. None more so than the GM.
And I get it. I get prickly, too. It puts you in a very vulnerable position, running a game. But...I want to get better at it, not stagnat. I just wish more people were at least slightly open to even gentle critique.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My experience of an open-world game:
(1) The GM was trying to minimise the amount of preparatory work he had to do. So he used random map generators and things like that to provide most of the content. "This map hex contains the burrow of a flail snail." Which isn't to say he wouldn't do work, but if he didn't have the time, there was stuff for us to explore.
(2) We at least had an overall plot hook - it was a lumber colony set up in a previously abandoned location, and they wanted us to map the vicinity, and there was a cash reward for anyone who could clear out the local haunted ruins. I did get frustrated sometimes about us not having a clear goal beyond exploring the area.
(3) When we found things, they were mostly trying to kill us. One time we discovered a village, but the people there refused to speak to outsiders. (Which is frustrating, because I couldn't even tell if there was anything we were supposed to be doing there, or if we should just ignore them.)
(4) There was quite a lot of tension in terms of the mechanical challenge - the random enemies weren't particularly balanced against the group, so you had to have a retreat plan.
(5) There was an overall quest, but once I discovered it, I was reluctant to pursue it, because I could tell it represented the end of the campaign. There were too few sub-quests for my taste.
The rest of your group sound like they're having a good time, either because they're just excited to be playing a RPG, or because they're people who enjoy hanging out together. That doesn't mean the game couldn't be better, just that they don't need it to be.
The game might well improve over time - you could stumble across a threat that gives the campaign more direction, or the GM will find the time to create more specific content.
As for gentle critiques: A better approach might be to try to understand what the GM is trying to do.
"I'm not used to this kind of open-world game where there aren't any obvious immediate problems for us to tackle. One time I played a game where we were mapping the wilderness, but there was a missing boy and rumors of a bandit camp to make it feel like our exploration had a clear purpose. What's expected of us? Should we be taking advantage of our free agency by making our own plans to, I dunno, take over the town, or will that just make things harder for you? Right now I feel like we're just wandering around the countryside, hoping to get attacked. Is that OK, or are we missing obvious clues as to what we should be doing?"
Sounds like you have different expectations for the games...
Absolutely. I just read The Angry GM's article on the 8 different types of engagement, and it was pretty eye-opening. Some people are all about #2-5, others don't care much for #3 one way or the other, and some people would rather not play at all than have a game without #7, etc.
He mostly seems like he just doesn't know what he's doing, unfortunately. And worse, he is supremely confident that he's Da Best GM Evar.
Just to clarify regarding some other posts, this isn't my first open campaign or anything. It's one of the few forays into a new group.
I've been doing this for quite a while now, and I've put a lot of work and research into the what's and why's regarding gamemastering.
I've played in a couple fairly open games, and I've run a few myself, too. They're not my favorite, but I get them. And this...I don't know. There's no sense of discovery, nothing to motivate the characters or the players. Just four hours of filler.
And yeah, I'm basically positive that the rest of the group are super new to the hobby and are just happy to be doing it at all. They're hungry, and they've never had anything better than a Hot Pocket, so they don't long for lièvre à la royale.
As for the characters providing the story...man, I tried. I spoke with thy GM numerous times about the game. Trying to get a feel for it, trying to make a character that will be invested in the campaign and fit in the world.
When I got a whole bunch of radio silence on his end, I figured he might want us to provide that stuff. So I showed him some ideas. He didn't say no to any of the concepts before play, but once we sat down, he seemed determined not to let me derail his directionless game.
And I'm fine with an introductory session. But then...I would hope that it allows for introductions. But everyone was off doing their own thing for 90% of the session, and most of that time seemed to be the GM's opportunity to talk in silly voices for various NPC's.
He's very energetic and theatrical, which is nice. But...man. I did not come here to play peanut gallery to someone else's one-man show.
I sometimes wonder if I'm being too critical. Like, *looking* for faults. But two hours into this game, I wished I...wasn't there. It was boring and frustrating and a waste of my time. And I feel like it's fair for me to be like "nah, I'm good", and bail out.
I've given it two sessions. Eight hours. If you can't impress me in eight hours...I gotta go.
At any rate. Thanks for letting me vent a bit. I know that first post was pretty rambling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a similar experience years ago playing in the AD&D1e adventure When a Star Falls. There we were in a town with nothing much to do (and no backstory, these being characters we'd rolled up just for this module). Any rumours? No. Any jobs needing to be done? Nothing suitable. Some shopping happens. The Thief does some petty pickpocketing because AD&D*. Half an hour of dithering goes by; we players are getting bored and the DM is getting antsy.
Finally Nick says, "We sit in the tavern waiting for the adventure to start."
Apparently we were expected to set out into the wilderness for no apparent reason, whereupon we would see a meteor fall and then go and investigate it, thereby starting the adventure.
Given the lack of backstory, the GM should have just cut to the chase and said "you're all travelling together through the wilderness when..." but this was about 1983 and he was inexperienced.
*For some reason, mundane activities around town like shopping, bar brawls, pickpocketing, joining a Thieves' Guild and so on seemed to be an integral but dull and pointless part of AD&D, especially at 1st level. I think it was encouraged by Gygax.
Hrm, you could try to focus on interaction with your fellow players. Yes, they are inexperienced, but they are enthusiastic, too. Let your PC ask their PCs some simple questions about their opinion or their family / professional background. Play a simple game of dice with them, ingame. Let them vote what to do next.
The GM seems to be overwhelmed with his task. So he will stick to what he knows and is capable of, meaning he is not openminded to suggestions or to a player trying to move the plot (overly) eagerly. You can offer a bit of advice when you two are alone, that way he doesn't feel the need to impress other players. He is more likely to accept ideas shaped as "I would..." or "You could..." - so the decisions are still his. But he will likely need a lot of sessions to improve by a significant margin.
Personally, I'd give it another try, with a different approach, but drop out if it doesn't work out. Just because you are an experienced GM doesn't mean you are obligated to make every campaign work for you as a player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Open world" is great in concept, but in reality it's sort of a red flag.
The point made earlier that an open world game is just a way for the GM to lessen his prep work is often accurate, but it overall just shunts work to ad-lib work that has to take place during play.
The only way I've seen open world games work is if the GM has done actually more prep work to have numerous plot lines lined up, and be ready to apply them when the party shows interest in one or more of them. Of course, I've seen this approach be problematic when only part of the party are interested in any particular plot hooks, but other members of the party are interested in a separate, incompatible plot hooks.
In short, even in an open world game, the GM still needs to guide the story being told.
This is a bad GM, he should have a story planned and should push the hooks onto you. This is a big part of why I prefer Adventure Paths.
...you could try to focus on interaction with your fellow players...The GM seems to be overwhelmed with his task. So he will stick to what he knows and is capable of, meaning he is not openminded to suggestions or to a player trying to move the plot (overly) eagerly. You can offer a bit of advice...
Oh, I tried. But the moment our conversation goes on for more than ten seconds, the GM jumps in with a silly NPC doing silly things to get a laugh out of the table.
I think he's so hesitant to give me the space to do anything because he needs all of the cool/fun/awesome/funny/smart ideas to come from himself. And when he doesn't have any ideas, he'd rather there be nothing than have to share credit.
Now, to be fair, this guy is apparently running a total of five weekly games and playing in another. So I can imagine he's pretty busy.
But man. I've been there. And after a month or so I was like "I need to take this down a notch to deliver a quality product."
But it doesn't seem like he'd ever do that, because he can't open himself up to the possibility that his games need improvement.
The more I've spoken with him, the more I've gotten the overwhelming vibe that he is deeply insecure and desperately needs attention at all times.
I've told him that I can't make it to that game anymore.
One of the other players has been wanting me to run a game--he's heard the stories--and I figured I could at least give it a shot. So I asked them if they'd be interested in such on a different night that was easier for my schedule.
This guy asked me if I was a good GM. I assured him that I was very good. He asked, "as good as me?"
At first, he said he was probably "too picky" about his games (which, obviously I understand), but "if it makes you feel any better, you're the best player I've ever had by a mile."
I dunno. I don't like to think about the stereotypes surrounding this hobby. They feel dated and silly. But then I meet people like this.
Now, to be fair, this guy is apparently running a total of five weekly games and playing in another. So I can imagine he's pretty busy.
6 games a week? Does he have a job? Does he have family? This is a major red flag IMO. I barely have time to prep for and play/GM in 1 game a week. I seriously think you need to look for another game group.
He has a job and a girlfriend. I'm not sure what the job is, but he apparently can listen to podcasts about this one ttrpg system that he plays exclusively. It's a level of obsession/dedication I have never seen before.
I mean. I get pretty obsessive, so I understand. But this level is kind of a flag, yeah. Like, I doubt he can even accept the possibility that he has room to grow within the hobby.
The Angry GM's article on adventure structure was really interesting. And I think pretty much everyone should read it (and basically everything else he's written. Dude's obnoxious, but he's articulate and helpful). What I hate most about most "open" structures I've encountered is this attitude of "there's so much awesome stuff for you to do. Go find it." I don't care how awesome it is. Finding it is not.
Because of the way such a structure works, you need to make sure that any and every scene is good enough to be the last one. If you can't manage that, stick to branching or hybrid structures.
I think he's so hesitant to give me the space to do anything because he needs all of the cool/fun/awesome/funny/smart ideas to come from himself. And when he doesn't have any ideas, he'd rather there be nothing than have to share credit. (...) The more I've spoken with him, the more I've gotten the overwhelming vibe that he is deeply insecure and desperately needs attention at all times.
Ok, now that sounds like classic narcissism. And narcissists want worshippers, no peers. And for sure no critics. I don't see you in the worshipper role, so I can't see how this could work out.
This guy asked me if I was a good GM. I assured him that I was very good. He asked, "as good as me?"
Narcissists can't stand other people being good at something, because they feel it overshadows their own glory. Hence telling one you are "very good" at something is quite a trigger.
I want to thank everyone for the support. I've been called an elitist or worse over the years when it came to my confidence/pride in this hobby. It's burned a few bridges. And...yeah, it took some hard knocks to realize I should tone it down a bit, just out of a sense of decency and respect for my fellows.
So whenever I see something like this game and my gut reaction is "this is TERRIBLE. WHY IS NO ONE GOOD AT THIS EXCEPT MEEE?!"...the next thing I'm hit with is a wave of doubt and guilt. And then I'm not sure about anything anymore.
Four of the other five players are extremely green; this is their first or second time with a ttrpg. The silly voices and the antics of the NPC's that follow us around (there's a chaotic evil little fey-monster who says crazy things and stabs at people randomly, and a very stereotypical goody-goody priest/heal-bot lady who is perfect and sweet and pure and innocent) entertain them greatly.
The GM hadn't gotten to the point where these characters have held an extended conversation with each other, but...if I tried to talk to another player or some random townsfolk or something for over 45 seconds or so, one of these NPC's always interrupted to say or do something crazy/endearing, to the laughter/aw's of most of the table.
And to be fair, the GM has a good grasp of character voice and stuff. A solid actor. We encountered some kind of all-powerful, shape-shifting monster and the GM really sold the proud, regal and ruthless nature of the creature.
I'm willing to give credit where it's due.
But now I'm thinking about running a game for this same group for various reasons, and this guy is already giving me trouble. He says he's "very picky" about his games and wants to know if he can play two characters at once to "keep him invested". Heh.
I think this has helped me see how difficult I was, back in the day. I mean. I knew I was A Lot. But now I'm experiencing something similar (if more extreme) firsthand.
The game described by OP doesn't sound fun to me either. An 'open world' style game can be excellent but it does require the GM to exercise some better judgment on how to properly set the stage. There needs to be some direction. The GM can provide avenues for adventure without railroading a particular path (which is another way of saying 'open world') by simply making clear a few guidelines of expectation and/or bread crumbs for the players to opt toward.
I have been running games for decades and I've been told I run a great game. I endeavor to constantly edit my methods for a better game, but that often required pondering a mistake in hindsight, a mistake like the poor framing of the game described by OP. Perhaps your GM has potential or perhaps not; only you can decide whether that game is worth continuing on in as a player.
There's open world games and then there's completely ad-libbing your game session. Sounds more like the latter. An open world game typically has a few different locations/plotlines the players can follow at will. Typically your Open World GM is probing the players for things they might want to do in the future and fleshing out those hooks while you're on a current hook.
Four of the other five players are extremely green; this is their first or second time with a ttrpg. The silly voices and the antics of the NPC's that follow us around (there's a chaotic evil little fey-monster who says crazy things and stabs at people randomly, and a very stereotypical goody-goody priest/heal-bot lady who is perfect and sweet and pure and innocent) entertain them greatly.
Few GMs are good at every aspect of GMing.
You're expected to:
Entertaining people with improv and character work is a valuable GM skill. This GM is good at that. He's probably pretty good at some of those other skills too, but bad at the whole 'develop a plot that progresses at a decent pace' aspect. But, overall, based on the criteria he values, he's a good GM.
Based on the criteria you value (and probably on what I value too), you're a better GM.
But you're not a good fit for his group, and he's almost certainly not a good fit for your group (or any group where he doesn't get to be the centre of attention most of the time).
Now that the doubt has passed, I've got a bit of a harder opinion on this.
There are eight types of fun; eight ways to be engaged. Marc LeBlanc came up with the list and there hasn't been much in the way of significant revision. There's sensation, narrative, fantasy, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression and submission.
When people are talking about badwrongfun, what they're usually talking about* is the difference in emphasis on these eight things. Some people love expression and discovery, some people need challenge. Some don't care at all about fellowship. Etc.
(*there's also some discussion about style and genre and the like which leads to this same problem.
And then there's the people who use the term without really understanding what it means.)
So yeah. This guy is big on expression for himself and fantasy for his players. That's cool. Those two are hugely important to me as well. And I'm good at delivering on them.
But I'm also dialed in to sensation, narrative, challenge and discovery. I don't think fellowship is something the GM is responsible for, and my games are never big on submission. I don't do beer-and-pretzel games.
His players might enjoy his performance, but that doesn't mean this is just a matter of preference or opinion. There are real, tangible issues at that table. His players are so new they just don't know what they're missing. They're just happy to be together, to be playing, period.
The player who invited me to this table has been asking me to run a game for ages.
I'll give this guy another chance, but I can't sit at his table. I'd rather do 1,000% more work and actually enjoy what's happening.
It's comforting to see that this sort of thing isn't as common as it seems to me; every table I've tried to sit at in the last few years has just been...I mean, a train wreck at least used to be a train, something that had purpose and functioned before it went off the rails. These few games were never on the rails.
And as far as the open structure format for adventures/campaigns go, I would definitely agree with previous comments saying that these sorts of games can easily be an excuse for GM's to not do prep work and such.
I also think some people are so scared of "railroading" that they don't want to limit player agency at all, which...is silly. No one has 100% agency all the time, and as long as we have enough often enough, we'll be fine.
This guy probably doesn't have time to do any more prep work then he currently does. But I don't think he cuts corners due to laziness or being overburdened; he genuinely seems to think that this is the best way to run a game, that his improv is strong enough to support a whole campaign (or six).
It's pretty clear that the GM is doing an improv standup bit and not dming a sandbox game.
And damn, a DM who seems to want to dominate the table wanting to run two characters so he doesn't get bored in your game? What a turkey. I'd fully expect him to try and run your game into the ground if he started to enjoy it.
"Dude, you've got a ton of games going, and already said you thought you'd be bored, so I don't think you should join us."
DMing a sandbox game is tons of work. You're essentially running a bunch of subplots, doing everything you can think of to point the players toward in character ways to influence events, and adjusting the plot and environment in ways that reflect their choices and the advancement of the story. Even when you're doing a "get to know you" sort of thing, you should be exposing the players to the overarching plot that they'll be working with, and various related challenges, or you won't know what your players do when faced with challenges.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and one last thing... any GM that says that running a sandbox game is LESS prep than a typical game, in my opinion they're doing it wrong.Even if you decide to use the Kingmaker hex exploration rules, leaving Hex 1 the players could conceivably go in 6 different directions. In each of the adjoining hexes, you better know what the terrain is, what PCs are likely to encounter, if there are any lairs in those hexes, what resources might present themselves and so on.
Then, if you're REALLY trying to be a decent GM, you gotta come up with some kinds of connections between all these hexes in order to make a cohesive setting. If one hex is parched badlands and that's bordered by a 12 mile radius lake, give that some thought. If one hex has a red dragon and there's a settlement with a Small City in the next hex, there might be a story there.
That's a lot of work for just 7 hexes. Each spot they explore, that's another set of hexes you'll have to...
You miss the point when people say Sandbox is for lazy GM's, many GM's use the open sandbox so they don't have to prep all 7 of those hexes. they just see what the players are going to do, and then throw some random event in front of them. This is a hallmark of a bad/lazy GM.
A GOOD GM will do the work you discuss, but I have found the ones who do that to be far and few between. Most open sandbox GM's are just lazy and prefer to be reactionary in their game instead of proactive.
