PDA

View Full Version : When the game isn't run the way you wanted?



Amaril
2017-04-03, 08:58 PM
So, tonight, my regular group took a break from our long-running campaign to play a one-shot of Bliss Stage, which I and the guy who most often GMs had been bugging the others to try out for a long time. I'd never gotten to play it before, but the book read like a dream come true for me: mecha, relationship drama, weird surreal dream stuff, some of my biggest favorites. The other player who'd been talking it up (I'll call him S) stepped up to run the show, since we were mainly doing this to give our current GM, who I'll call W, a break for the week.

However, we ran into...a bit of a problem, at least for me. See, S and I have at least one thing in common: we're both pretty opinionated, and we each have very clear and specific ideas about how things should be done, especially when it comes to games. And it turns out that S' vision of how Bliss Stage should work is, in one big, important way, very different from mine.

For those who don't know, the basic premise of Bliss Stage is playing teenage soldiers who fight aliens in a world of dreams by drawing on their relationships with loved ones to form mecha. To do this, each pilot character has the help of an "anchor", who stays awake in the physical world to operate the equipment keeping the pilot in the dream and feed them intel and support through a comm link/telepathic connection. When pilots draw on their relationships to create their suits, it's their bond with their anchor that forms the base chassis, which they add other equipment to by summoning other connections. Each player creates a pilot as their main character, but they also create and control anchors to play when their pilots aren't in the spotlight; to put it one way, while one player is running a mission as their pilot, the player of that pilot's anchor takes over GM responsibilities for the mission, describing the pilot's environment and guiding them toward objectives. The overall GM controls a unique character, the authority figure, who runs the whole organization and is supposed to be in charge of assigning pilot-anchor pairs in-story.

Now, here's where the complication happens. See, the way I read the game, during session zero, the group is supposed to decide who's playing anchor for who else's pilot, and those two players create the pilot and anchor characters together, determining their history and the nature of this close relationship they share. Then, throughout the game, that pilot and that anchor will remain paired as a persistent unit; their relationship is central to the pilot's personal story, and if the pair is ever broken for some reason, forcing them to team up with a different anchor or pilot for a mission, it's a big deal and can lead to complications. This was a setup I found really compelling, and I wanted to see it developed if I ever got to play the system.

So we sit down to make our characters, and almost right away, S starts giving some instructions that are confusing me. He essentially tells us to just make whatever pilots and anchors we want as fast as we can, no thought given to their shared history or connections. I don't bring it up, because this is a one-shot, we're pressed for time, I don't want to bog things down, and I assume he's just glossing over the details so we can get to the real game faster. We finish chargen and start with our first mission...and S has the authority figure just throw pilot-anchor pairs together seemingly at random. No thought to who has the strongest relationships (which he could easily check OOC, since they have mechanical stats), no sense that these assignments were part of any standing arrangement.

Throughout the session, this kind of throws off the dynamic I'd expected. I find I'm left without the biggest engagement point I'd expected to grab onto--my pilot ends up paired with an anchor who the mechanics dictate is essentially a stranger to him, and I'm not really sure how to play that situation. I muddle through as best I can, but the whole thing ends up just not feeling like the game I'd been excited to play. After the session, as we're wrapping up and sharing our thoughts, I bring this up, explaining to S how his vision for that part of the game seems different from mine and asking whether he might be willing to negotiate on that point if we play this system again...and he flat out tells me "no. I'm the GM, this part of the game is under my control. You want to see it done your way, you run it."

Now, in a sense, he's right--in the game's fiction, it is supposed to be the authority figure who pairs pilots and anchors. Nonetheless, this feels to me a little like sitting down to play D&D, excited for some good old-fashioned monster-smashing dungeon-crawling, and finding out that you're instead going to be playing a game of delicate political intrigue, then, after going along with it through the session, saying "hey, this really isn't the game I was hoping to play, you think maybe we could talk about making some compromises next time?" and being told "no, it's my game, I can run it how I want". Which, again, is true in a certain sense, but...I don't know, it doesn't really feel like team play to me? I'm all for the GM being able to exercise some creative control, but I think it's also important to be willing to listen to the players' thoughts and compromise so you can run a game everyone will have fun with. I guess my concern is that now, with the rest of the group seemingly sold on the system, it might be decided that we're going to pick it up for a longer campaign in the future, but that the part of the game I was most excited for won't be there, and I won't be allowed to have any say. S suggested that I run the game if I want it to be structured like this, but it's not really a system I'd be interested in GMing (I really want my own giant robot).

Am I completely off-base here? Any advice on making my position understood?

CharonsHelper
2017-04-03, 09:23 PM
The relatively non-drama solution would be to run a session your way and ask the other players which way they prefer. Since it is a new system to your group - just consider it to be growing pains.

Besides - if it's a one-shot, why does it matter that much? Is the group now considering making it a semi-frequent system to play?

Amaril
2017-04-03, 09:32 PM
The relatively non-drama solution would be to run a session your way and ask the other players which way they prefer. Since it is a new system to your group - just consider it to be growing pains.

Besides - if it's a one-shot, why does it matter that much? Is the group now considering making it a semi-frequent system to play?

I know that's an option, and honestly, I love the concept of the game so much I'm kind of tempted to try. I normally hate GMing, and I've never run anything more than a one-shot; this system would be more tolerable, since the GM really doesn't do very much of the traditional GM stuff (they don't have to narrate anything, just set vague objectives for missions and roleplay the authority figure). Still, though, I have to say, if it's a choice between GMing the game the way I'd want it to work, and just not playing it, I'd have to go for the second option. That's my issue, I think--I've been so excited to try the system as a player for so long, I've gotten attached to the way I expected it to work and the things I like about it, and now playing it without those things would just feel like a disappointment.

We are, indeed, considering making it an ongoing thing at some point. That's why I'm concerned about this--like I said, I'm worried about getting stuck in a campaign with the system that doesn't scratch the itch I had for it, instead making it worse by contrast. I'm chatting with S now, and it sounds like he's more open to my thoughts than I might initially have feared, so that's encouraging.

RazorChain
2017-04-03, 10:13 PM
Well the game is rarely run how we want.....which leads some us to run the game we want.

For example, I'm running a game that focuses on politics, intrigue and the character's personal goals. It can be said that it is a character driven game and it happens in late 12th century mythic Europe where all the superstitions and myths are true.

Everybody is having fun then one player sends me a message if I could incorporate more dungeons, magic items and boss monsters into my campaign.

Now 4 out of 5 players like things the way they are and we even had a session subzero where we discussed what we would play and who would run it, as this is a newly formed group. Session zero we made characters and focused on what kind of adventures we wanted to play.

First there are no "dungeons" in my game...a dungeon is where you keep your prisoners. But exploring ruins or ancient tombs is in the picture but monsters don't congregate there, collecting treasure and wait for somebody to come and slaughter them.

Second: Magic items in my game are rare and powerful....like Caliburn, Excalibur, Ascalon, Durendal...you get the picture, they have one item now and might aquire more later but the 5th player hasn't even bothered to get better quality equipment !?!

Third: I don't know what boss monster are? I started to play 30 years ago and nobody used the term "boss monster" There are only villains and dangerous creatures! And the system I run doesn't lend itself well to "boss monster" encounters.

This is a conflict of styles, the 5th player wants D&D...and I don't run D&D dungeon crawling hack and slash anymore but that's what he wants.

But of course I try to cater to my players wants and I'm throwing him a bone....but he should be careful what he wish for as the group is about to be thrown into the Necropolis beneath St. Peter's Basilica in Rome without any gear.

Amaril
2017-04-03, 10:23 PM
Snip.

All completely understandable--but I think my situation is a little bit different (as of when I first posted, at least). The fact that you had a session subzero to figure out this stuff, and that you're making an effort to throw your odd player out a bone in a way that fits the established game, is evidence that you're paying attention to what your players want out of the game and taking it into account. To me, the situation I had feels like asking for something like that session subzero and being refused it. Which, to me, feels a little unfair.

And honestly, I have a bit of a problem with the whole "if you want this game, you should run it" argument. I mean, playing and running a game are completely different experiences. I don't think it's unreasonable to want the player-side experience and still have some preferences and expectations for how that experience will go. Running a game where the players have the experience you'd want in their place is not a substitute for playing that game yourself. Not saying you're arguing otherwise, just want to be clear on where I stand.

chase0351
2017-04-03, 11:09 PM
It may be that your GM is overwhelmed and has no idea how to run the game you need and want. When people act rudely it's either due to them being a **** or struggling with things they don't have enough understanding in right now. I'm betting the latter since you bother to associate with this person. I think he's reacting to you in aggressive way with out really meaning it. What he probably means to say is. "I have no idea how to do that. That requires a lot of energy and if you are somehow able to do it and prove to be better at than me then maybe that would be cool but it would make me feel stupid too. Telling you all this also makes me feel uncomfortable. " But there is no way in hell he will say that if he wants to say that.

Unfortunately you want it so much because you are able to perceive it in all its glory. I have this problem. Nobody in my group wanted to let me dm because I would sometimes lose track of what was happening during combat because I'd get so bored but when they let me dm they were blown the hell away lol. It's not because you or I are smarter, it's because people who want intrigue think about intrigue.

So unfortunately you may have to do this yourself or seek another group. I sure do want to be a player myself, but I'm writing a book now anyway. Just don't let it make you think less of your friend. Good luck.

Anonymouswizard
2017-04-03, 11:18 PM
The short answer really is if you want it a certain way run it yourself.

Now this can vary, I personally think the best game is one where characters are actively pursuing a goal and can bypass most combat encounters with quick thinking and good social skills, while other people I know prefer 'explore a dungeon and fight monsters'.

The difference between the first sessions of GURPS games with different GMs was surprising. In one the group was brought together, given an objective, and despite some in character fiction tried to work towards it and solved problems as they came up with a variety of noncombat skills. In the other the group had to come up with reasons as to how we might meet, work together as a group with only two characters having any trust between them, and ended up in a combat we couldn't avoid (and it was lucky I was wearing armour).

Now in this case it sounds like the intended idea of the system (bare in mind I haven't read the rules, although I plan to at some point) is that each character has a 'standard' anchor but might occasionally have to have another one for various reasons. In the case of a one shot what your friend did was probably the right decision, but in the case of a full campaign you should likely have a session zero where the case of 'how anchors work' is discussed and the group ages how they'll be handled as a whole.

Of course the GM should always throw an occasional curve ball, but if we'd agreed to play Tales of the Solar Patrol 'Jeff the roguish telepathic space pirate' is more acceptable than 'Albert the T-Rex insurance salesman' (who, while great, probably belongs more in absurdist fantasy than early 20th century disagree opera).

RazorChain
2017-04-04, 04:39 AM
All completely understandable--but I think my situation is a little bit different (as of when I first posted, at least). The fact that you had a session subzero to figure out this stuff, and that you're making an effort to throw your odd player out a bone in a way that fits the established game, is evidence that you're paying attention to what your players want out of the game and taking it into account. To me, the situation I had feels like asking for something like that session subzero and being refused it. Which, to me, feels a little unfair.

Good GM's pay attention to their players, that's what makes them good. My biggest breakthrough as a GM was when I realized it wasn't about me but my players. I look at myself as an entertainer. Entertainers are at their best when their doing something they love to do, therefore I only run things I want to run but I take my players wishes into account and try my best to incorporate what they want to see and do. This is much harder to do when you are running one shot game but communication is still the key. I communicate with my players both through Facebook and E-mail to save precious gaming time. Still we always take a few minutes after a session to go over the session, what we liked and what we didn't as I like constructive criticism so I can improve and also get the feeling for what my players like. In your case your GM didn't like the feedback and shut you out, basically "my way or the highway". This isn't the best way to go about things when you want everybody to have fun and it could have easily rectified without any trouble whatsoever on his part.



And honestly, I have a bit of a problem with the whole "if you want this game, you should run it" argument. I mean, playing and running a game are completely different experiences. I don't think it's unreasonable to want the player-side experience and still have some preferences and expectations for how that experience will go. Running a game where the players have the experience you'd want in their place is not a substitute for playing that game yourself. Not saying you're arguing otherwise, just want to be clear on where I stand.

No but I've played with lot of different GM's and they all have their distinct style. I've played many good campaigns and games through the years but still the games I REALLY want is the games I run. I once played in a short Exalted campaign and I was really excited about it, I liked the concept but am no big fan of the Storyteller system. The GM was someone I had played with for a short while but he had never run a game the group before and he did a worse than mediocre job out of it, didn't do a proper homework and was running a rather uninspired module. I wasn't happy and I wasn't having fun and after the module was finished I offered to run the next adventure and in the end I ran the rest of the campaign.

This deprived me of playing but running a good, solid game is more fun than playing a boring one.

Darth Ultron
2017-04-04, 06:43 AM
Well, in this case it sure sounds like it is a lot of weird game rules. If there is a reason to match A and B that makes sense, the game still needs a rule to do that. If the ''game'' just thought every DM would use ''common sense'', then the game was very wrong.

Though, it does sound a bit like you wanted to play the game very, super optimized and the DM wanted just a normal game. Though it does sound like this game made the huge mistake of ''awesome fluff'' and ''awesome rules to support the fluff'', but then forgot ''awesome rules to play the game''. If Joe gets a plus one to attack and Sally is an attacker they would make an ''obvious'' pair, but unless the rules say so it does not ''have to'' happen. It's like saying in D&D you ''must'' have a cleric in the group to heal the group.....this is not a rule, even if every player ''thinks'' it is a rule.

Mechanics aside....the game sounds super fluffy. I mean a ''special'' relationship in your imagination sounds great....but it does not make for a great game. Like you could have the most special of all special fictional relationships, and well in the game your still just going to get in a mecha and fight a dragon. So all that ''fictional realtionship'' stuff does not matter too much...other then for fluff. And sure if your ''fictional relationship partner likes cherries'' then you get a ''+20 to your super awesome robo kick'', but you don't ''have'' to get that to play the game.

The worse might be when you think session o should have this or that done in it....well that is great, but might not be what the DM wants and they get to make the call. It's like having a DM say ''don't both writing a background'' and you still turn in 25,000 words of backstory and are like ''DM use this right now.''

Koo Rehtorb
2017-04-04, 10:18 AM
First of all look to the game rules. Is there anything you can point to in them that backs up your position?

thamolas
2017-04-04, 10:33 AM
If you don't want to GM and you wind up unhappy with the way the game is run, you always have the option of not playing. "This isn't my cup of tea. I'm going to sit this one out, guys," isn't unreasonable.

Gaming is fun and awesome and all that, but there are a ton of other things in life that are also fun and awesome, etc.

When I run a game, I explain my style well in advance (sandboxy, somewhat realistic as far as cause-and-effect and player actions, no hand-holding or coddling, no railroading, perma-death with no fudging, "players need to be proactive or nothing will happen", etc.). And if people join the game and don't like it, my feelings aren't hurt. I want them to do something they think is fun instead. And I certainly have better things to do than run a game where people aren't having fun or play a game where I'm not having fun. If I play a game and it's not fun, I explain my reasoning and if nothing changes (or is subject to change) then I quit and do something else. Life is too short to play games where you aren't having fun.

Amaril
2017-04-04, 11:31 AM
It may be that your GM is overwhelmed and has no idea how to run the game you need and want. When people act rudely it's either due to them being a **** or struggling with things they don't have enough understanding in right now. I'm betting the latter since you bother to associate with this person. I think he's reacting to you in aggressive way with out really meaning it. What he probably means to say is. "I have no idea how to do that. That requires a lot of energy and if you are somehow able to do it and prove to be better at than me then maybe that would be cool but it would make me feel stupid too. Telling you all this also makes me feel uncomfortable. " But there is no way in hell he will say that if he wants to say that.

After talking to him a little more, I think a big part of the issue was just that it was a one-shot. S definitely isn't the type to shy away from a session 0 for ongoing games, but since we were just demoing the system, he wanted us to get to the actual play without getting too bogged down in setup. Which is fine, and I'm sure we'd spend more time on discussion if we were gonna make this a campaign.

Talking to S more after the game has given me some insight into how he thinks the anchor system should work. He said he "doesn't really disagree with me", which I was a little confused by, but it sounds like he's not vehemently opposed to the concept of pilots and anchors being consistently paired. However, he then went on to explain "I just believe that our group inherently leans toward cooperation so I worry about things getting too dull. So this is why I would try mix up pilots and anchors if that would keep things interesting." This makes sense to me. One thing I've learned in playing with S is that he views any character relationship that isn't constantly in conflict and on the brink of collapse as boring, lacking in sufficient drama. It's one of the things that grates on me most about his playstyle, because while I'm fine with having some relationships like that within a group, I also want my characters to be able to have some that are more stable and healthy, which is hard when S always goes out of his way to stir up s*** and turn characters against each other to "keep things interesting". This is something I've tried to express to him, but like I said, we're both pretty opinionated and committed to our ideas, and he seems pretty unwilling to accommodate my preference on this point. Even so, the conversation we've had about this particular issue with this particular system makes me think he'd at least be willing to talk about it if we made it an ongoing game, which is all I expect. I'm confident that we could come to a compromise that will allow him the interpersonal conflict and drama he likes while also keeping the consistent relationship arcs I'd want to explore.


Now in this case it sounds like the intended idea of the system (bare in mind I haven't read the rules, although I plan to at some point) is that each character has a 'standard' anchor but might occasionally have to have another one for various reasons. In the case of a one shot what your friend did was probably the right decision, but in the case of a full campaign you should likely have a session zero where the case of 'how anchors work' is discussed and the group ages how they'll be handled as a whole.

My read of the system definitely makes it sound like this was the intention. A lot of the fluff talks about the relationships pilots and anchors are supposed to have, and in particular, the unpleasant implications of two kids being thrown together in the middle of a war and told "hey, you two need to fall in love so you can make a stronger dream robot to fight the aliens", knowing full well that one or both of them could not be long for this world and soon have to go through the same stuff all over again. Anyway, it really doesn't seem to me like the pairs are supposed to be constantly shifting. But I can see how that's a lot to assume, and I do agree, figuring it out in advance would be important for playing on an ongoing basis. I was just concerned for a bit that S wouldn't be willing to do that, but it sounds now like my fears were unfounded.


Well, in this case it sure sounds like it is a lot of weird game rules. If there is a reason to match A and B that makes sense, the game still needs a rule to do that. If the ''game'' just thought every DM would use ''common sense'', then the game was very wrong.

Though, it does sound a bit like you wanted to play the game very, super optimized and the DM wanted just a normal game. Though it does sound like this game made the huge mistake of ''awesome fluff'' and ''awesome rules to support the fluff'', but then forgot ''awesome rules to play the game''. If Joe gets a plus one to attack and Sally is an attacker they would make an ''obvious'' pair, but unless the rules say so it does not ''have to'' happen. It's like saying in D&D you ''must'' have a cleric in the group to heal the group.....this is not a rule, even if every player ''thinks'' it is a rule.

Mechanics aside....the game sounds super fluffy. I mean a ''special'' relationship in your imagination sounds great....but it does not make for a great game. Like you could have the most special of all special fictional relationships, and well in the game your still just going to get in a mecha and fight a dragon. So all that ''fictional realtionship'' stuff does not matter too much...other then for fluff. And sure if your ''fictional relationship partner likes cherries'' then you get a ''+20 to your super awesome robo kick'', but you don't ''have'' to get that to play the game.

The worse might be when you think session o should have this or that done in it....well that is great, but might not be what the DM wants and they get to make the call. It's like having a DM say ''don't both writing a background'' and you still turn in 25,000 words of backstory and are like ''DM use this right now.''

It's definitely a super fluffy game, and not the kind every group would have fun with. Our group is all about weird, fluffy, story-first games, which is part of why I like it so much better than any other group I've ever played with, and if anyone can make it work, I know we can. After trying it the once, the two players who were uncertain about it at first, W and D, both say they get it now and would be down to play more of it, so I'm not worried about the system just being bad for our group.

I totally disagree about my priority being optimization. I find my imagined setup interesting because of the fiction it implies; the fact that it's also the optimal way to play is just a nice bonus, and it's what makes me think that my setup was the way the game was intended to be played. Since every relationship is assigned mechanical stats (these are the only stats characters possess in the game--your character sheet is just a big shipping chart), it's easy to look at who has the strongest relationships and figure out based on that who should be anchoring for who. In-character, this would be represented by the authority figure keeping tabs on the pilots and anchors, figuring out who's the most compatible through seeing how they work together and running synch tests and such. Based on that, it only makes sense to me that they'd pair up the people who are strongest together and keep them that way unless circumstances force a change somehow (which can happen, by the rules). The way S did it just seems kind of ass-backwards to me, really, though I feel like I understand why he did it; I just still don't agree, and I'd hope he'd be willing to hear me out so we could come to a compromise if we played the system again.


First of all look to the game rules. Is there anything you can point to in them that backs up your position?

It's pretty much as I explained above. A stronger relationship fluff-wise leads to stronger stats, which directly increases the pair's combat effectiveness. So, it makes sense that the people who are strongest together would be matched. The fluff (which is most of the game) also seems, to me, to strongly support my reading, though that's obviously more open to interpretation.


If you don't want to GM and you wind up unhappy with the way the game is run, you always have the option of not playing. "This isn't my cup of tea. I'm going to sit this one out, guys," isn't unreasonable.

Gaming is fun and awesome and all that, but there are a ton of other things in life that are also fun and awesome, etc.

When I run a game, I explain my style well in advance (sandboxy, somewhat realistic as far as cause-and-effect and player actions, no hand-holding or coddling, no railroading, perma-death with no fudging, "players need to be proactive or nothing will happen", etc.). And if people join the game and don't like it, my feelings aren't hurt. I want them to do something they think is fun instead. And I certainly have better things to do than run a game where people aren't having fun or play a game where I'm not having fun. If I play a game and it's not fun, I explain my reasoning and if nothing changes (or is subject to change) then I quit and do something else. Life is too short to play games where you aren't having fun.

I guess I could offer to sit out if the game ends up just really not being palatable for me, but that would run kind of counter to the established attitude of our group. For all I make it sound like we don't get along, we really do make a practice of compromising on things to make sure everyone's having fun whenever possible; me threatening to sit out of the game would come across less as "hey, I'm fine with you guys playing this while I take a break, have fun", and more as "I'm throwing a tantrum and threatening to take my ball and go home unless I get exactly my way". If I said I wanted to sit out based on this, I strongly suspect that the others would offer to make the game the way I want instead so I could keep playing, but I don't want to be that extreme about it. That would feel like I was bullying them.

Darth Ultron
2017-04-04, 11:58 AM
I totally disagree about my priority being optimization. I find my imagined setup interesting because of the fiction it implies; the fact that it's also the optimal way to play is just a nice bonus, and it's what makes me think that my setup was the way the game was intended to be played. Since every relationship is assigned mechanical stats (these are the only stats characters possess in the game--your character sheet is just a big shipping chart), it's easy to look at who has the strongest relationships and figure out based on that who should be anchoring for who. .

Well it's hard to comment on a game I never heard of, but it does sound like your metagaming. Like a character can use any weapon is in the rules, but you read that as ''all characters must use a kantna as it does 2d20 damage''. It ''makes sense'' to you, and you would ''never play the game any other way''.... But not everyone will play the game so optimized, so your ''must be done'' is not universal.

ImNotTrevor
2017-04-04, 03:16 PM
Well it's hard to comment on a game I never heard of, but it does sound like your metagaming. Like a character can use any weapon is in the rules, but you read that as ''all characters must use a kantna as it does 2d20 damage''. It ''makes sense'' to you, and you would ''never play the game any other way''.... But not everyone will play the game so optimized, so your ''must be done'' is not universal.

I don't think you read the part where, in the game's fiction, the goal is to fight off an Alien Invasion.

You're implying that, somewhere in the fiction, there is a sensical reason for the group spearheading this effort to just randomly pair people up instead of shooting for the best combinations.

Not having the authority making that decision choose the best links is actually MORE metagamey, since at that point it's the GM imposing a No-Optimization-Evar policy without any sensible fictional reason other than "The Commander is either an Alien Sympathizer and needs to be killed for jeapordizing our survival" or "The Commander is grossly incompetent and needs to be exposed or fired immediately for jeopardizing our survival."

This interpretation has no foot to stand on.
>_>

Amaril
2017-04-04, 03:18 PM
I don't think you read the part where, in the game's fiction, the goal is to fight off an Alien Invasion.

You're implying that, somewhere in the fiction, there is a sensical reason for the group spearheading this effort to just randomly pair people up instead of shooting for the best combinations.

Not having the authority making that decision choose the best links is actually MORE metagamey, since at that point it's the GM imposing a No-Optimization-Evar policy without any sensible fictional reason other than "The Commander is either an Alien Sympathizer and needs to be killed for jeapordizing our survival" or "The Commander is grossly incompetent and needs to be exposed or fired immediately for jeopardizing our survival."

This interpretation has no foot to stand on.
>_>

Not really related to the issue at hand, but this makes me want to point out that Bliss Stage has rules for player characters overthrowing the authority figure's control. When that happens, the current GM passes off their campaign notes to the usurper, who takes over as GM, their character becoming the new authority figure :smalltongue:

Herobizkit
2017-04-05, 03:44 AM
I learned many moons ago that "we always run the games that we wish we were playing".

While you might be stunted mechanically with a less-compatible host, I assume that (in-game) you have an opportunity to strengthen that bond through adventures and RP? To me, that's the real story.

... but I like slice-of-life dram-com stuff in my Modern/Future settings. ^_^

Amaril
2017-04-05, 11:42 AM
Well, it turns out we won't be making a campaign of this after all, so the issue's moot. On that note, I'm off to see if anyone in the recruitment section wants to give it a shot :smalltongue:

Quertus
2017-04-06, 08:06 AM
Well, it turns out we won't be making a campaign of this after all, so the issue's moot. On that note, I'm off to see if anyone in the recruitment section wants to give it a shot :smalltongue:

What happened? Did you misguage people's enthusiasm for the game, did your talks with S turn him off, or did something else cause things to fail?

Jay R
2017-04-06, 10:50 AM
It depends.


... but I think it's also important to be willing to listen to the players' thoughts ...

Are we talking about "the players' thoughts" or only the player's thoughts? Specifically, are you the only one who feels this way, or do other players share your concerns?

Imagine a baseball player wanting to compromise by putting some baseball rules into the football game everyone is playing.

Obviously, that's a bad idea. It will make bad football without creating any good baseball.

Similarly, when five people want to watch Logan and one person wants to watch Beauty and the Beast, we can't solve it by putting a ballroom scene in Logan.

It's simply not true that all GMs and all games are for all people.

If the other players want to play that game that way, then they get to, and it's not a game for you.

But if several of the players would prefer a different game, then offer to run a different game (or try to get somebody else to do so.)

In this case, it seems clear that you wanted to roleplay the relationships between anchors and pilots, and he just considered that background for the game he wanted to run.


Throughout the session, this kind of throws off the dynamic I'd expected. ... but the whole thing ends up just not feeling like the game I'd been excited to play.

I sympathize. And maybe this isn't the right game for you. If so, let your friends enjoy it and either join the program or find something else to do. That's fine.

Just because you are both using the same name doesn't mean you have the same game in mind.

Amaril
2017-04-06, 11:49 AM
What happened? Did you misguage people's enthusiasm for the game, did your talks with S turn him off, or did something else cause things to fail?

Nothing so dramatic--one of our other players, D, said that while he'd enjoyed the one-shot, he wouldn't really be up for a campaign in the system (I think he wants something more lighthearted, which is fair, given the dark tone our group is normally all about). We're still finishing up our current long-running game of Masks, so once that's done, we'll do our normal process of pitching and voting for our next system.