I feel I need to leave my D&D group.

[ngilop]

Hey guys Im thinking of quitting my gaming group, something that I rarely have ever done.

Right now the issue is, the DM and the a couple players seem to not have any idea on what the rules of D&D do, for example I have had to explain to them that combat expertise does not allow you to make 4 attacks of opportunity instead of 1 when you gain a AoO, just that you can now make 3 extra AoOs in a round.

But in all seriousness I can get passed the 'don' really know the game' ive been there and misread things, hell I found out that ive been doing something wrong for like 10 years now.

What kills me though is how atrocious the DM is. Well, he is just horrid.

I know there needs to be a certain amount of railroading in any game. but when all player agency is taken out of my hands and my character is forced to do things simply because the DM thinks it funny.

case in point we were in a maze ( that appeared out of nowhere in the city with instantly regerating walls that went MILES high, so high that I could not fly out of the maze.. PS im a master of many forms in this game its something new and interesting) so here I am I randomly decided to learn terran as a language during character creation and so while running into some type of earth elemental I talked to it and found out the way to the maze's end, well the DM didn't like the fact that I us out of the maze so fast so blah blah NOT the end now we have to spend another 4 hours IRL trying to get through this maze, that literally added nothing at all to the story the MD just wanted to make us go through the maze.

the DM never prepares anything, I mean we are supposed to play for 6 or 7 hour sessions once a week ( a few times we met twice a week) and probably about half that time is him sitting in his chair and trying to think up random stuff that will happen next, so yeah I do spend a lot of time with my head on the table sleeping or whatever and it has no affect on the game because the game is paused while the DM finally thinks up what is going to happen next.

he has no sense of what is appropiate to throw at as, he goes form tossing 3 ogres at us with no way to escape at lvl 1 to only giving us 1 shadow at level 6 'because they are too powerful'

I asked him several time, to please just run a published adventure so you can get the basics down on how to distribute treasure, how encounters should work etc etc ( by bad treasure I mean he honestly thinks that a ring that heals you for 1d6 once a day is more powerful than a ring of invisibility...)

he gives me some bull ish about having this huge awesome idea for a campaign and he will not be very creative if he has to run something somebody else wrote. well I mean dang dude, you self creative-nesss really really bad. I mean ive yet in any of our sessions ( been about 15 or so months) have you ever done anything remotely creative. since half the sessions ( or more) are you stopping play because you need to think up something and that thing is usualy 'OHMGG I think would be so funny" insert X to screw the players over....

I know the guy, he is really artistic and can draw like a bawss, but being able to think on his feet will never save anybody's life.. ever. So him just 'winging' it every session is pretty terrible.

I consider myself a patient man and I had hope that he would eventually do better or maybe actually buy, idk red hand of doom or rise of the runelords ( I told them about the first 'adventure' and how it starts at the swallow tail festival then GOBLINS ATTACK!' and the DM and players all were like 'wow that sounds really cool we need to do a game like that." or really anything that is no his bull crap self made drivel.

In the end I guess the short version is. im just tired. Tired of trying to play a game that I find AWESOME but how the guy running it managed to make it SUCK. I just needed to rant and this seemed like a good place

The good news is me complaining at work got me to find some others who play D&D who are new to the game and so they and I have reached an aggreement to play with me as their DM and then when one of them has the hang of things I can switch over to being a player YAAY!

[fishyfishyfishy]

I'm surprised you've lasted as long as you have. I wouldn't ever be able to make it through 15 months of that. You should definitely start that new group and leave the old one ASAP. Because what's the point in playing of you aren't having any fun?

[Honest Tiefling]

Yes, yes you do. I hope yo have better luck with the new group. I think if your group finds 'Goblins attack a festival' to be amazing...Well, they probably want something other then what this guy is offering. Vote with your feet. There might be people who enjoy this, but they are not you.

[ellindsey]

15 months, once a week, so you've put up with 60 sessions of this? You are remarkably tolerant of bad GMing. I would have quit long ago if I were you.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Say it with us "No gaming is better than bad gaming."

[atemu1234]

Say it with us "No gaming is better than bad gaming."

Truer words are rarely spoken.

[Knaight]

I'd have bailed ages ago. There is some incompetent DMing here, it sounds like the group is a gaming group first and not a bunch of friends who also game, and there's just no effort being put in. I mean, the DM is somehow improvising (poorly) and still railroading. He's managed to railroad without laying track.

[johnbragg]

Do you have any interest in DMing? Suggest it as a one-shot, buy Rise of the Runelords or whatever if you want to.

Has the rest of the group played D&D with anyone else? Heck, has he played with anyone else?

Wait, I missed the last line of your post. forget those guys.

[Max Caysey]

First of all I can imagine how the game might present itself problematic when reading your post. Combat Expertise is the 3.0 version, which enables a subtraction of 5 attack bonus which then can be added to AC. Combat Reflexes is a feat where you add your Dex modifier to the total amount of AoO per round.

Om another note.. leave and take your friends with you. Leave that god aweful DM asap.

[ngilop]

First of all I can imagine how the game might present itself problematic when reading your post. Combat Expertise is the 3.0 version, which enables a subtraction of 5 attack bonus which then can be added to AC. Combat Reflexes is a feat where you add your Dex modifier to the total amount of AoO per round.

Om another note.. leave and take your friends with you. Leave that god aweful DM asap.

yeah I meant combat reflexes, LOL sorry I wrote the wrong one.

sad part the DM is my friend, lol I only found out he even played D&D a couple years ago even though ive known him for like 7?

I did DM for like 3 sessions at the end of july beginning of august. the problem was the more assertive personality player of the group REFUSED to do anymore adventuring beucase 'the wizard and dwarf lord can do this instead' like damn, did this guy really just want to create a character and then level to 3 and give up because the wizard and dwarf lord were higher levels, insn't that like Doing it wrong?

oh well.

[Mr Adventurer]

First of all I can imagine how the game might present itself problematic when reading your post. Combat Expertise is the 3.0 version, which enables a subtraction of 5 attack bonus which then can be added to AC. Combat Reflexes is a feat where you add your Dex modifier to the total amount of AoO per round.

Om another note.. leave and take your friends with you. Leave that god aweful DM asap.

What's 3.0 got to do with it?

[ericgrau]

If players aren't interested in learning the system you can't do much about that. If the DM doesn't have time to prepare you can't do much about that. You can talk to your DM to get him to stop railroading and throwing in so much crazy stuff; that's the one thing that could be fixed with a lot of work. But overall if the other people don't want to put in effort into playing then there's nothing you can do. Go ahead and leave and don't feel bad or mad about it. It's fine if people don't want to try hard at a game.

Even better you have another option so go for it.

[thethird]

Say it with us "No gaming is better than bad gaming."

Maybe it's because English is not my native tongue but could that be understood as: "There is not any kind of gaming that is better than bad gaming i.e. bad gaming is the best kind of gaming there is."? (this is a sincere question)

I agree with the sentiment though, I just found it funny that my mind chose to read it differently this time.

[ericgrau]

Yes that is correct you could read it two ways. But I'm sure he means the more likely way.

[Banjoman42]

Maybe it's because English is not my native tongue but could that be understood as: "There is not any kind of gaming that is better than bad gaming i.e. bad gaming is the best kind of gaming there is."? (this is a sincere question)

I agree with the sentiment though, I just found it funny that my mind chose to read it differently this time.
Railroading is the best kind of role playing. At least that is what I've forced my group to think.:smallamused:

I've had this same problem with DMs before, except mine was very afraid of not knowing the rules, so I could have made up my own rules, told him it was a real rule, and gone along with it.

[Elric VIII]

Maybe it's because English is not my native tongue but could that be understood as: "There is not any kind of gaming that is better than bad gaming i.e. bad gaming is the best kind of gaming there is."? (this is a sincere question)

I agree with the sentiment though, I just found it funny that my mind chose to read it differently this time.

This is one of those anomalies in the English language that changes meaning based on context and inflection. In this sense "no gaming" means "not playing the game." Basically, "not playing is better than playing in a bad game." But the other version sounds more catchy. :smallwink:


I would have to agree with the previous sentiments, leave your current group for the new one. But, here's the catch: tell your current group why you are leaving. Either it will change nothing or perhaps get them to put in more effort in future games.

[johnbragg]

No gaming is better than bad gaming

Maybe it's because English is not my native tongue but could that be understood as: "There is not any kind of gaming that is better than bad gaming i.e. bad gaming is the best kind of gaming there is."? (this is a sincere question)

I agree with the sentiment though, I just found it funny that my mind chose to read it differently this time.

You're right, both interpretations are grammatically valid.
"No gaming" in that sentence can mean "There is no gaming better than bad gaming" or the intended meaning, "Not gaming is better than bad gaming."

That said, I would not always agree. Not gaming is better than awful gaming, but mediocre gaming is better than not gaming.

[Feint's End]

I also suggest leaving the group but quite frankly you should speak up about your experience with them. Don't throw it at their heads though. Just explain in a reasonable manner what your problem is and how you think they could improve their time with a few easy steps. I think this will help both you and them.

Who knows. Maybe you leaving and explaining to them why in a nice manner (they can't say you rage quit but instead you very clearly are a reasonable person) will actually change something in the end.

[Spore]

Are the other players important to you? Do you think the DM would make a good player? I am strongly suggesting you change your kind of deal but don't burn all bridges at once. Ask the players if they feel the same. Ask the DM if anyone else (or you?) could DM?

[Solaris]

I did DM for like 3 sessions at the end of july beginning of august. the problem was the more assertive personality player of the group REFUSED to do anymore adventuring beucase 'the wizard and dwarf lord can do this instead' like damn, did this guy really just want to create a character and then level to 3 and give up because the wizard and dwarf lord were higher levels, insn't that like Doing it wrong?

Generally speaking, you want the party to be at around the same level - even if that means creating a character at a higher level. Having someone make a character a lower level is either punishing them for being new to the group or punishing them again for having a previous character die... in addition to making your job as the DM harder because you need to balance challenges to multiple levels.

[TrollCapAmerica]

It also depends on the kinds of problems and group your with.I played PF with a group of guys that started with 4TH.They each had 2 characters some of them didnt have names and their system mastery..............left much to be desired as well.The DM had a DMPC lead the party around and jump into the background to fight things to big for us cut-scene style and had a bigger DMPC that was apparently a 200thlv Doctor Who.

and yet I still wanted to play with them.They were reasonable folks that just lacked overall experience and perspective on gaming. The first thing I did in our brief time was make the most outlandish interesting character I could while combining it with optimization just to give them an example of what could be done and they actually loved it..I would play with these guys again in a second and I wanna get one game of 5th ed in with them before I move away next month

The group in OPs example sound less like they have a problem with playing D&D and more like they are just dumb.I know I sure as hell wouldnt have stayed all that time and finding a group shouldnt be such a life or death struggle if you really try

[the_david]

About the thing with the maze. I'm pretty sure the Earth Elemental would say "Follow me" and step into a wall. Elementals are pretty dumb.

The walls being really high though, that's dumb. I'd have given the maze a ceiling.

And just leave the group. Start with something simpler for the beginners, but don't start with an adventurepath.

[ngilop]

Generally speaking, you want the party to be at around the same level - even if that means creating a character at a higher level. Having someone make a character a lower level is either punishing them for being new to the group or punishing them again for having a previous character die... in addition to making your job as the DM harder because you need to balance challenges to multiple levels.

My bad I should have said so in my post there, but the wizard and dwarf lord were NPCs. the more forceful personality player literally did not want to do anymore adventuring because the higher level NPCs existed, I tried explain the whole 'if the bigger powers move then other big powers move as well, this way those counter big power just kinda twiddle their thumb"

But he was having none of it, so I just winged I for the next 2 sessions and ended it with what I would consider a crappy and hasty ending story but they (the players) were actually happy.

I ha just always assumed that me as the MD having the high level NPC do all the PCs work for them would tick the players of said PCs off, not the other way around.

the said part about explaining why I am leaving the very first campaign he di, at the end he asked me how it was and I was very frank and constructive with it. he just ignored it and kept doing whatever. I think the super ultra 'let me crew over the players cuz I think its funny' was the final straw for me. I will still game with them, one of them is doing a star wars campaign soon.

But im going to make it clear that im never D&D-ing again with them, they just almost ruined a game that ive been playing for 27 years.

[danzibr]

I have to agree with the people that said to quit, and with those that said to offer to DM.

No matter what, you shouldn't play with that DM for the time being. The maze thing, with the walls mile high, was a huge red flag. The DM wanted things to be done a certain way, and didn't care about player abilities which could make it be done differently. Now that's a bad DM.

[daemonaetea]

My bad I should have said so in my post there, but the wizard and dwarf lord were NPCs. the more forceful personality player literally did not want to do anymore adventuring because the higher level NPCs existed, I tried explain the whole 'if the bigger powers move then other big powers move as well, this way those counter big power just kinda twiddle their thumb"

But he was having none of it, so I just winged I for the next 2 sessions and ended it with what I would consider a crappy and hasty ending story but they (the players) were actually happy.

I ha just always assumed that me as the MD having the high level NPC do all the PCs work for them would tick the players of said PCs off, not the other way around.

the said part about explaining why I am leaving the very first campaign he di, at the end he asked me how it was and I was very frank and constructive with it. he just ignored it and kept doing whatever. I think the super ultra 'let me crew over the players cuz I think its funny' was the final straw for me. I will still game with them, one of them is doing a star wars campaign soon.

But im going to make it clear that im never D&D-ing again with them, they just almost ruined a game that ive been playing for 27 years.

To be fair, and this may just be me, the "high level guys are around, but totally can't do anything to help because of reasons" is one of the story patterns I find most annoying. If there's a group of high level NPCs around, they better have a darn good excuse for why they're sitting back in town sipping mimosas while we're out getting the real work done. Even then, I might still be unhappy with the situation. Like, if they actually seem busy, and are doing things themselves that seem important? Sure. But if they just seem to sit in town waiting for us to get back, it can really annoy me.

So that may have been how they saw the situation. Maybe not what you intended, but perhaps how they interpreted it. Just throwing that out there.

Sometimes as a DM it's really important to talk to your players, to get a sense of how they're seeing the game. Sometimes what they see, and what you intended to convey, doesn't match.

[ngilop]

To be fair, and this may just be me, the "high level guys are around, but totally can't do anything to help because of reasons" is one of the story patterns I find most annoying. If there's a group of high level NPCs around, they better have a darn good excuse for why they're sitting back in town sipping mimosas while we're out getting the real work done. Even then, I might still be unhappy with the situation. Like, if they actually seem busy, and are doing things themselves that seem important? Sure. But if they just seem to sit in town waiting for us to get back, it can really annoy me.

So that may have been how they saw the situation. Maybe not what you intended, but perhaps how they interpreted it. Just throwing that out there.

Sometimes as a DM it's really important to talk to your players, to get a sense of how they're seeing the game. Sometimes what they see, and what you intended to convey, doesn't match.

So the ruler of a kingdom, in your mind, should stop well leading his kingdom and go off to a ruined castle (that's about a week away on foot) just because of a rumor of hidden treasure that maybe still be around?

These were not lvl 20+ NPCs, the dwaf lord was only level 5,and the wizard was lvl 8. I think having duties other than running off at the first hint of danger and possible loots is a perfectly acceptable reason of why the wizard and dwarf lord was not telling the PCs 'that's ok yo guys just sit in town, and we will do all the work'

I guess that players not wanting to actually play their PCs is not just something that I happened upon with this particular group, seems others want that as well.

my counter is simply, if you really do not want to play the game, having the various NPCs around do all the aventuring, why do you even show up at the table to create a character, let alone be there a few times if all you are going to do is ask " why is NPC 2 not saving the town?'

[Solaris]

My bad I should have said so in my post there, but the wizard and dwarf lord were NPCs. the more forceful personality player literally did not want to do anymore adventuring because the higher level NPCs existed, I tried explain the whole 'if the bigger powers move then other big powers move as well, this way those counter big power just kinda twiddle their thumb"

But he was having none of it, so I just winged I for the next 2 sessions and ended it with what I would consider a crappy and hasty ending story but they (the players) were actually happy.

I ha just always assumed that me as the MD having the high level NPC do all the PCs work for them would tick the players of said PCs off, not the other way around.

the said part about explaining why I am leaving the very first campaign he di, at the end he asked me how it was and I was very frank and constructive with it. he just ignored it and kept doing whatever. I think the super ultra 'let me crew over the players cuz I think its funny' was the final straw for me. I will still game with them, one of them is doing a star wars campaign soon.

But im going to make it clear that im never D&D-ing again with them, they just almost ruined a game that ive been playing for 27 years.

Oh yes, that certainly changes things tremendously. I'm sorry, the idea that a player would object to a higher-level NPC in the setting simply... never occurred to me.
Other than, y'know, the itinerant adventurer-types like Elminster.

That's... quite impressive. I agree, it's entirely believable that a high-level ruler couldn't run off and deal with the first problem to pop up, if for no other reason than that nulls the point of the game, on top of not making in-setting sense.

[Templarkommando]

My home group played for the first time in three years this past Saturday. In college, I was always experimenting with new stuff, and we would frequently play every week, but as things have gone on, I have other obligations, and I've used up a lot of ideas in the time that I've been playing. Eventually we went from playing every week to play once every other week, then every month, and then I just kind of pooped out. I hope to get to playing more, as my group is fairly special to me, it just hasn't worked in the last few years.

At one point we tried playing with different players as DM, but one of us just didn't put enough work in(by his own admission), and the other I just about couldn't stand as a DM(There's always a chance for you to find a trap when you search for one, and if you don't find it, it gets you).

Despite that, I suggest that you try to get someone else to DM - even if it's not you - if the group matters to you. If the group doesn't matter to you, you should probably bail.

In the meantime, it's possible to be a member of more than one gaming group. Another group that I'm in has met pretty consistently since college.

[daemonaetea]

So the ruler of a kingdom, in your mind, should stop well leading his kingdom and go off to a ruined castle (that's about a week away on foot) just because of a rumor of hidden treasure that maybe still be around?

These were not lvl 20+ NPCs, the dwaf lord was only level 5,and the wizard was lvl 8. I think having duties other than running off at the first hint of danger and possible loots is a perfectly acceptable reason of why the wizard and dwarf lord was not telling the PCs 'that's ok yo guys just sit in town, and we will do all the work'

I guess that players not wanting to actually play their PCs is not just something that I happened upon with this particular group, seems others want that as well.

my counter is simply, if you really do not want to play the game, having the various NPCs around do all the aventuring, why do you even show up at the table to create a character, let alone be there a few times if all you are going to do is ask " why is NPC 2 not saving the town?'

Well, the specifics of the situation matter, yes. In the cases you post, yeah, they have a perfectly valid reason not to help. I consider a king as being busy, yes, and if it's only rumors it's perfectly in line for them to send a weaker party to investigate.

Sorry, it's probably because of a campaign I was recently in that your description seemed to match. In our case it was a group of NPCs twice our level sending us out not to check rumors, but to fix an evil that had plagued the land for hundreds of years. The DM hinted a lot that there were reasons that they weren't just fixing things themselves instead of sending us out, but even when he finally explained it wasn't really a good enough answer. The explanation really just seemed to be "this is the adventure you're supposed to do". By having us do it, instead of the NPCs, it really broke our immersion in the world and broke our feeling of a consistent, active world.

So it's all a matter of internal consistency, of feeling like things happen because they had a reason to happen, not just arbitrarily - of the forces being used consistent with the importance of the mission and all that. I understand sometimes the logic just comes down to "you're the PCs, this is an obvious quest, get on with it" but if it's too blatent it turns me off the adventure. In your examples it seems perfectly consistent and logical for the NPCs to not get involved directly, but from the way you described it originally that wasn't actually clear. My apologies.

EDIT: As an example, as a 5th level character, there's a difference to me between the Church of Pelor asking me to go clear out a graveyard, or take out a necromancer that's causing trouble, and the Church asking me and my 5th level companions to stop the Archlich of Destruction, Malificus the Overwhelming, from being resurrected and restarting his crusade against the known world. The first two very clearly makes sense, and the other just makes you go, in character, "seriously, this seems really important, you have got to have someone better to do it". Maybe the answer really is no, or our characters really do need to do it, but unless there's an explanation of why that is that fits into the world and makes sense I just find the situation a little silly. "You're the PCs" is a valid enough reason, I'll admit, but by itself I find it unsatisfying for an immersive experience. The more out of line what's being requested is, the better the reason behind it needs to be.

But again, your examples make perfect sense to me.