PDA

View Full Version : D&D Group Problems, What do I do?



Orwellian
2017-04-22, 11:54 AM
Hello. This is my first post on these forums so apologies if it is posted in the wrong section or something.

I'm currently in a group with a couple of my friends in highschool. So I've been playing in this group for about a year or two, and I've been becoming increasingly unhappy in it. This is because of a bunch of problems that have been getting progressively worse, or possibly just more noticeable, as time went on. The biggest one here is that we don't really have a GM. Or that we have too many and most of them suck. You see, everyone wants to GM. And so we decided at the start to rotate GMing duty after each adventure/campaign. The thing is, only two of us are actually not terrible at being the GM. So what happens is we have terrible, unplanned campaigns that inevitably fall apart halfway through, leaving the next GM to have to hack together a campaign to run before they fully plan it. What makes this worse is that the absolute worst GM in our group is also the one who wants to GM the most, and he is an ultimate power-loving **** who makes forgettable campaigns with no character or interesting story that drag on for way longer than they should.

What can I do about this? Personally I'd like to be able to GM but if it comes at the cost of this then I'd rather always be a player. However, none of the other group members have really shown that they would be reliable as a GM as they have often neglected to plan anything, resulting in us missing games and not playing for long stretches of time.

Should I just leave the group? I feel like it would be hard for me to find a group in my area, especially since I'm not very confident socially and I'm not sure how many groups are my age.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

Whoops I just double posted by accident. How do I delete this?

Sajiri
2017-04-22, 12:09 PM
Everyone wants to GM? I feel like thats the first time I've heard that, usually everybody wants to be the player! If the big problem is that you rotate, and that campaigns are always unplanned, then maybe you should all take a break to actually plan some campaigns. You could even take feedback from each other on what you'd all like in it, thats what my GM and I do (although thats one GM, one player so it's a bit easier).

If everyone wants to be the GM but their campaigns are falling apart halfway through, why is that? Do they just lose interest in it? Are they not that interested to begin with but being a player is worse? I guess it all depends how close you are to these people. If it would cause bad feelings if you left and you still have to see them, or you want to keep hanging out with them, then maybe pitch to the group that you might all need some more organisation and work out together how to have someone run a game that wont end early and everyone can enjoy. Otherwise you could just find a new group, if you're shy you could try finding one online. Especially if you want to GM, it feels like most groups want someone to fill that role

Anonymouswizard
2017-04-22, 12:17 PM
First off, I'm sure that there are many groups who would be happy to welcome a younger member :smallsmile:

Alright, now the too many GMs issue is hard. I've previously been in a group with a lot of people who wanted to GM, I never got to because I like to GM Cyberpunk or Space Opera and the group mainly wanted fantasy. I still have those campaigns saved to run with another group. In my case almost everyone either had a campaign prepared or could improvise GM (I personally tend towards the latter), so it was just the occasionally 'who runs next' fight.

On the 'nobody has anything prepared' front, suggest you take a break from roleplaying and have a board games night for a few weeks while somebody plans something. Board games are fun, and it takes pressure off so people can plan more thoroughly and run more engaging games.

Also, I believe you can hit the 'edit post' button and delete a post that way, not 100% sure about threads, might have to report it (these mistakes happen and the mods around here are generally nice).

Lo'Tek
2017-04-22, 12:25 PM
Try a session zero. Discuss who or what each one wants to play and who masters it.
Take notes. Play a few sessions. Review how it went, compare it to the notes.
Improve based on constructive feedback. Vocalize what you like or dislike.
0 and Review can be dedicated sessions: more preperation time and a clearer head.

Orwellian
2017-04-22, 12:29 PM
Everyone wants to GM? I feel like thats the first time I've heard that, usually everybody wants to be the player! If the big problem is that you rotate, and that campaigns are always unplanned, then maybe you should all take a break to actually plan some campaigns. You could even take feedback from each other on what you'd all like in it, thats what my GM and I do (although thats one GM, one player so it's a bit easier).

If everyone wants to be the GM but their campaigns are falling apart halfway through, why is that? Do they just lose interest in it? Are they not that interested to begin with but being a player is worse? I guess it all depends how close you are to these people. If it would cause bad feelings if you left and you still have to see them, or you want to keep hanging out with them, then maybe pitch to the group that you might all need some more organisation and work out together how to have someone run a game that wont end early and everyone can enjoy. Otherwise you could just find a new group, if you're shy you could try finding one online. Especially if you want to GM, it feels like most groups want someone to fill that role

Thanks for the reply, faster than I expected.

The problem is also partially that a lot of the time the other players in the group can have tons of time to plan when we miss a session for one reason or another, but they still don't. That gets really frustrating, as when we do finally play the current GM has very little planned and runs a lackluster session.
And then there's the problem of one of our players always wanting to GM but always running unfun campaigns.

Do you think that having one dedicated GM would make for easier running of games? I feel like it might but I want to be sure.

Also, I responded with a quote on your whole comment, should I do that? I'm not sure how much I should include in the quote sorry.

Orwellian
2017-04-22, 12:33 PM
Try a session zero. Discuss who or what each one wants to play and who masters it.
Take notes. Play a few sessions. Review how it went, compare it to the notes.
Improve based on constructive feedback. Vocalize what you like or dislike.
0 and Review can be dedicated sessions: more preperation time and a clearer head.

I would love to do this but the other players don't seem to see this as as big of an issue as I do. Every time I try to get the current GM to communicate with the players and take feedback the GM doesn't care and I end up being the only one with anything to say. I've run a couple of session zeroes before for my campaigns and they've worked, but when other GMs do it most of the time they just let the players create their character sheets and then start the game without any discussion.

Lo'Tek
2017-04-22, 12:54 PM
So what is it that you want? You want to be happier? Make an infomered choice to feel happier.

If you believe that you will be happier if the group changes it style: vocalize that
If you need to change your framing of the game to be happier, reframe it.
If you feel happier leaving the group: leave.

You take issue with something: change it, change yourself or leave it, but make a choice you can be happy with.

Sajiri
2017-04-22, 02:08 PM
Thanks for the reply, faster than I expected.

The problem is also partially that a lot of the time the other players in the group can have tons of time to plan when we miss a session for one reason or another, but they still don't. That gets really frustrating, as when we do finally play the current GM has very little planned and runs a lackluster session.
And then there's the problem of one of our players always wanting to GM but always running unfun campaigns.

Do you think that having one dedicated GM would make for easier running of games? I feel like it might but I want to be sure.

Also, I responded with a quote on your whole comment, should I do that? I'm not sure how much I should include in the quote sorry.

Well, how long does one adventure actually last for/is planned for, and how quickly does it rotate? If someone wants to be the GM, but they arent planning, then it sounds like they aren't that into it, or maybe they just need more time? The way my GM and I do it, we take turns as the GM with our own campaigns each, and we just run the one we feel like. We take turns in that he'll run a session, then I'll do one another day, then he'll run the one after that. I have 3 seperate games Im running (one is on indefinite hiatus until I can figure out what Im doing though), and I'll just run one for a few weeks until I want a break then go to the other. My GM who enjoys the role far more than me has six seperate games, with another 1-2 he's talked about wanting to do, and its the same thing, we just focus on one at a time until he wants a break from it, we move to another one for a while until we're ready to go back to it. But for both of us it can take quite a while to plan things.

Another thing could be that maybe they just like making settings/plots but dont actually enjoy the role of GM. You could focus on having just one GM, or have people GM in pairs or something (one person creates the setting/plot, the other actually runs it).

I would second what Lo'tek said with review and session 0. My GM and I, regardless of who's the player and who's the GM, will throw ideas back and forth before starting a new game to work out together what we want from it, and will often between sessions talk about how its going and where we want to go with it. "I want to do this with my character" "I want to see more of this NPC" "I think it would be cool if something like this event happened" "Can I get a power/reward something like this for something?" This is obviously easier when it's a single player than a whole group, but knowing what your players want and working it in to the game makes it much more enjoyable. Of course whoever's GMing needs to be open to incorporating player ideas, and not super controlling about how the PCs interact with their setting. Which does give me the thought, since you described one member as 'power-loving', is it possible many in the group want to be the GM despite never planning/losing interest because they feel they dont get any freedom as a player?

LordCdrMilitant
2017-04-24, 11:49 AM
One of my two groups had a "multiple GM's" approach to things.

We cycled through, one by one, and each person ran a campaign in turn. Some went poorly, and died in short order, some went well, and ran for longer. We weren't clamoring for the position, but it was just a sort of next person picks up the torch when the last person falls sort of deal.

The group is naturally more willing to play again with people who ran longer running and more fun campaigns, and the people who didn't GM as well revert back to being a player.

Also, with regards to preparation, I GM by improvisation. I do a little bit of planning, and also plan things week to week, but in session things never go as planned and I improvise.

RazorChain
2017-04-24, 12:47 PM
I'm going to share with you some experience.

When I was gaming in my teenage years most people I played with weren't passionate about RPG's. It was a hobby and more than half of them don't play anymore. But people were willing to take the GM hat and try it out. Most of the worst roleplaying experiences I have had happened in this time because today I surround myself with like minded people who have a passion for gaming and want to use their precious time to have fun.

GMing will most likely take care of itself through natural selection, one GM is the best GM and he will get the job (if he wants it). If a horrible GM wants to run a game and the good GM steps up and throws out an idea about a game he wants to run then people will want to participate in his game. If the horrible GM runs a game then you have to give a concrete feedback why his game sucks and if he's willing to get better then all the more glory to him as we have GM shortage in this world.

If you have half planned campaigns the just take more time, let somebody run one shots or something in the meantime. The magic about campaign planning is not writing a script or organize a multitude of adventures but planning the stage (the setting). Adventures you can easily plan afterwards or just let them evolve organically. The stage doesn't even have to be big, you can easily center a campaign around a town or a city.

But if everything is rubbish then It's your time to put on the GM's hat and show the how it's done, if you do a good job at it and live in an area with sizable RPG community then you have players for life. A good GM is worth his weight in pizza, everybody knows that.

SirBellias
2017-04-24, 10:25 PM
Highschool games are rarely great to begin with. For the most part, people lack experience playing, running, and planning good games, so everyone is either trying to find out how or not invested enough to think about it.

My advice is to take a couple of the more tolerable people aside, and try to run a decent game, and stick with it until you figure out what works. Then if any of them want to learn, pretend you're letting them in on the secret. If you act like you're teaching them, they'll think they'll have to learn something, and high schoolers are known to avoid that like a particularly bad plague (from my experience in high school, at least).

If you don't have fun running games, don't run games. If you think this will upset people, it probably will, and you'll have to decide how much you care.

This could be a case of "this game is a pretense for getting together with friends and nothing more" in which case breaking off a group would be more difficult. In that case, I'd probably do it anyways, but that's me. You may also benefit from having multiple friend groups for different activities.

Good luck.

Cealocanth
2017-04-25, 12:23 PM
Sir, may I introduce you to the ultimate campaign setting builder: Microscope.

I find that it's perfect in a group where everyone has ideas they want to run with the world, everyone has an adventure they want to run, and there's not enough time or talent to address all of these. When you start a campaign run a session 0. Build the campaign world, decide on the game, and make sure everyone has a say in how the world works, and everyone reaches a compromise. The official Microscope systerm helps a lot with that, but all that's really required is that everyone has a stock in the world that they can define for themselves so they can play the game they want to play. If two players have fundamentally incompatible ideas (e.g. You can't find a compromise between playing heroic Arthurian knights and playing bloodthirsty space pirate bandits), then you might want to run two games instead, perhaps alternating out the weeks, or perhaps just forming a new group that meets on a different day.

This is at least what my group runs. We play a generic 'one size fits all' sort of game, though, so it's easy to play superheroes on Monday, post-apocalyptic car warriors on Tuesday, epic fantasy on Friday, and monster city cops on Saturday.

Knaight
2017-04-25, 04:03 PM
I'm going to suggest that some of the problem is system side - you have a whole bunch of GMs who appear to all favor an improvisational style, and a system that is clearly not designed to work well with an improvisational style. Beyond that there seem to be some problems with how to distribute GM duties, and here I'd suggest establishing a codified pattern for how to handle that. Specifically I'd suggest two main things: methods for terminating a current game that people aren't liking, and methods for figuring out how to hand out new games. The first of these is easy - have a rule that every 5* sessions the group votes on whether to keep going with the current game. The second is a bit more complicated, but I'd recommend having everyone who wants to GM pitch a specific campaign concept (which includes an estimated length in sessions), the group vote, and then the group go with that. These two rules are fair, should cut particularly bad GMs out instead of letting them GM most, and encourage people to have at least an improvisational framework ahead of time.


*The number is flexible here.

NeXeH
2017-04-25, 04:08 PM
This comes down to how much time and effort you are willing to put into your group. You stated that they are your friends in high school so you should just talk to them. Communication is key to resolving this issue.

My suggestion is that before the start of the gaming session everyone shows up at least a half-hour and have an open discussion about the game. The format could be list three things you like about the game and then list three things you dislike about the game. Everyone should have an opportunity to discuss his or her likes and dislikes.

After that, perhaps list two things you would like to experience in the gaming session. For example, I always tell DMs I want to fight giants :) After many years, I finally got my wish ;)

Finally when the session is over give the DM constructive feedback about the game, try to list one positive and one negative. DMs need feedback so that they can improve. I could easily see the DM who think is bad may think they are doing a great job.

Be open and honest and put yourself in their shoes, how would you like for someone to tell you that you suck? I can only assume you would want them to do it with tact and give you a chance to improve :)

SirBellias
2017-04-25, 05:00 PM
Sir, may I introduce you to the ultimate campaign setting builder: Microscope.



I can second microscope. And based on the fact that most of your GMs seem to have more ideas than incentives to use them well, it could be the only system you actually need.

Knaight
2017-04-25, 05:05 PM
I can second microscope. And based on the fact that most of your GMs seem to have more ideas than incentives to use them well, it could be the only system you actually need.

I wouldn't go that far. I adore Microscope, and a group full of GMs is probably the ideal circumstance, but like any game it gets old eventually.