Ever outgrow your table?

[TyGuy]

Is this a common thing? What happened to those of you that, over time, realized your interests weren't aligned anymore as players? Anyone have stories about how your table of friends salvaged the group by finding a different activity all together?

[Anonymouswizard]

It's happened once to me. I left for Uni, came back I the summer, and my home groups new hard lean towards D&D without using any of the balancing structures (5e, one battle a session, full Long Rest between sessions) made it compares disfavourably to my university group.

Although I think what eventually killed it was being denied my class abilities because the GM wanted to do a specific story element. Class abilities I'd sacrificed Extra Attack to get, so I was very much not happy I hadn't been told that before multiclassing. Annoyingly the GMPC Druid got all their powers, bit I believe all I got out of my Cleric level was hp. Then I finally got my Cleric spellcasting via a generic speech to the whole party after we defeated a demon in an abandoned shrine. No vision where I got to meet my god or a personal messenger from him, no discovery of an ancient holy symbol that responded to my character in any way, the shrine wasn't even related to my god.

The most annoying part is that, as the campaign was about the return of the old gods to a world that had lost sight of them, some kind of big dramatic moment would have fit perfectly. But nobody else had characters that really fit it, I think they were mostly atheistic mercenaries who cared only about payment, I'd just stumbled into a perfect fit by chance (hello ex-soldier missionary looking to spread the word of Bahamut and his prophet*).

* No, I didn't stay in the group long enough to work out the name of the prophet.

[Cheesegear]

realized your interests weren't aligned anymore as players?

Yes.
When the female members of the group started using D&D to roleplay out weird sex stuff. Like, there are single guys in this group right now who are probably willing to do weird sex stuff IRL right now after the session if you asked them. Not sure why you D&D to roleplay it out instead of...Actually doing it. When I declared that there'd be no more weird sex stuff at my table, the girls left the group.

D&D is a power fantasy. Everyone knows that. But when you start using D&D to roleplay out your political power fantasy that you learned from Twitter...That's not what D&D is for. You don't have to be doing that. I don't even understand why you're doing that...Yeah I don't think you're playing D&D right. The hostiles are Chaotic Evil monsters who are literally trying to kill you, and when you try and make friends with them, they'll likely still try and kill you.


Anyone have stories about how your table of friends salvaged the group by finding a different activity all together?

Warhammer 40K has been...Deteriorating for a while. On Saturdays, some of my opponents would come down to the game store, we'd have one or two games, then go for Beers-for-Lunch. It was a whole thing. Everyone likes a liquid lunch on a Saturday. But, like I said, WH40K has been deteriorating since mid-2020 (and, contrary to what makes sense for a social game, it actually doesn't have anything to do with pandemic). To the point where two of the guys just showed up to the store one day - my area has had very little lockdown.

What are you up to, today?
'Just waiting for you guys to finish so we can go get beers.'
Uhh...You aren't going to play a few games?
'Pfft. No. We just want to hang out.'

If you're friends, you should be able to do anything together. Should be able to.
If you're not actually friends, and TTRPGs is the only thing you have in common, then that might be a bad sign. If you have a TTRPG session, where you spend the majority of the 4-hour session talking to each other about your week and work and spouses...That might actually be a good sign. It's bad if you want to play the TTRPG. But it's good in the sense that you're likely friends, and having friends is good.

If you play an MMO, or if you play TTRPGs 'for the social aspect'...You could actually be doing literally anything else and socialise by doing that. People socialise at the gym. People socialise at work. People socialise by joining a club or amateur sports league. Bad movies are fun to watch when you have friends. But a bad movie is miserable, if you're by yourself. Friends literally can make anything palatable. However, if your group of friends no longer likes doing the things you usually do, just do something else...If you're actually friends, that is.

Of course, if you're the only one who doesn't like the group activity anymore; That sucks. It's time to find a new group of friends. It's hard. But if hanging out with your 'friends' no longer makes you happy doing what they're doing, it might be time to get either a new activity, or a new group of friends...Those two things don't even have to be mutually exclusive.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yes.
When the female members of the group started using D&D to roleplay out weird sex stuff. Like, there are single guys in this group right now who are probably willing to do weird sex stuff IRL right now after the session if you asked them. Not sure why you D&D to roleplay it out instead of...Actually doing it. When I declared that there'd be no more weird sex stuff at my table, the girls left the group.

I'm not sure which side to take. On the one hand, it's perfectly fine for the girls to want to do weird sex stuff but not with any member of the group. On the other hand anybody should be completely within their rights to request that something does not appear in the game.

At the end of the day, sounds like the best outcome possible probably happened. But I do kind of understand the girls' position, I'm more comfortable role-playing crawling through an air duct than actually doing it


D&D is a power fantasy. Everyone knows that. But when you start using D&D to roleplay out your political power fantasy that you learned from Twitter...That's not what D&D is for. You don't have to be doing that. I don't even understand why you're doing that...Yeah I don't think you're playing D&D right. The hostiles are Chaotic Evil monsters who are literally trying to kill you, and when you try and make friends with them, they'll likely still try and kill you.

The best campaign I ever played in ended in a political power fantasy where we foiled the plans of a RL figure and then humiliated them in a place with plenty of phone wielding bystanders.

On the other hand, Unknown Armies is the exact game where that makes complete sense. One of the example beginning objectives in 3e is literally 'the mayor used magick to cheat the electoral process, we must user magick to oust him'.

[Eldan]

Oh man. My current character is a variant cliomancer conspiracy theorist. He gets major charges from uncovering any conspiracy involving a person in power, he'd be so into that plot. (His only major charge so far was gained when he found out the local sheriff had covered up a magic-involving murder 10 years back.)

[Quertus]

But I do kind of understand the girls' position, I'm more comfortable role-playing crawling through an air duct than actually doing it

Do you scream, "grease me up, woman!" in a Scottish accent beforehand? :smallamused:

I'm all about playing "highschool drama" in a tactical basketball simulator, so I'm not one to call BadWrongFun for using a game for additional purposes. But, I agree, if it's actively hurting the other players, it should be eliminated.

[Cheesegear]

But I do kind of understand the girls' position, I'm more comfortable role-playing crawling through an air duct than actually doing it

Not the same thing. I should probably change my word. 'Weird' implies something out of the ordinary that might be...Uncomfortable IRL (although I do also mean that, too)
I meant disruptive sex stuff.


a RL figure and then humiliated them

That's certainly something you can have in your games. Me and my four friends fictionally humiliated someone. Hell yeah.
Reeks of mean girls. But you do you. If my table wanted to do that...That's the thread. I would no longer want to be at a table that is interested in fictionally dunking on real-world people.


One of the example beginning objectives in 3e is literally 'the mayor used magick to cheat the electoral process, we must user magick to oust him'.

Unless you're talking about abolishing the position of mayor altogether and screaming 'Defund the Guards' at the table, you missed my point.

[Anonymouswizard]

Not the same thing. I should probably change my word. 'Weird' implies something out of the ordinary that might be...Uncomfortable IRL (although I do also mean that, too)
I meant disruptive sex stuff.

If everybody's consenting then there's no problem.

That applies to air ducts and sex stuff. That also applies in game and out of game. Sex people get up to in game or out of game can be as weird or uncomfortable as they want, as long as everybody in the room is consenting and proper safety precautions are taken.

The issue here is that not all people were consenting.

For the record, I can certainly come up with sex related stuff that's interesting but they I wouldn't want to try IRL. But this isn't the place to discuss it anymore than your game was.


That's certainly something you can have in your games. Me and my four friends fictionally humiliated someone. Hell yeah.
Reeks of mean girls. But you do you. If my table wanted to do that...That's the thread. I would no longer want to be at a table that is interested in fictionally dunking on real-world people.

To be fair, the humiliation was about thirty seconds of embellishment after we'd beaten him, more of a fun description. But that ended up being a very politically charged campaign anyway, with a RL figure as the campaign violation and the entire group having similar views.


Unless you're talking about abolishing the position of mayor altogether and screaming 'Defund the Guards' at the table, you missed my point.

I'm not willing to comment on the political views of anybody I've played with. I'm being incredibly vague, but I've played in very, very politically charged campaigns. For all you know our characters might have been making such statements, or the complete opposite statements. It was Unknown Armies, we could have built characters who got magickal power from political campaigning if we wanted to (great for Avatars of the Warrior, become literally unkillable as long as you're fighting for universal literacy or whatever).

I don't see anything inherently wrong with anything you brought up. But I'll more than happy agree that none of it has to happen at your table.

[icefractal]

Like, there are single guys in this group right now who are probably willing to do weird sex stuff IRL right now after the session if you asked them.Of course it's fine to not want sex in your game, but that point's invalid.
"Co-writing a story that includes sex" != "Wanting to screw your co-writers"

[Kane0]

Yep, when 5e hit its stride and I got fully invested one of my groups held onto PF and we slowly diverged. The remaining campaigns I participated in were still good fun, but I could see the difference in tastes.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah I don't think you're playing D&D right. The hostiles are Chaotic Evil monsters who are literally trying to kill you, and when you try and make friends with them, they'll likely still try and kill you.

I want to go back to this, because now I've had a roll night's sleep.

Yeah, that hasn't been the 'correct' way to play D&D for a long time. It's certainly a correct way to play it, but the core assumption that the ogre will try to kill you if you try taking to it was never something the game stated as objective truth.

And that's before settings like Planescape came out and started exploring the assumptions. 'I killed them because they're Chaotic Evil' is not a defence in Sigil. How much the designers think the genre should be about killing evil dudes had varied massively over the years, and was probably strongest in 4e (, which unlike 5e at least admitted it was focused on combat).

In my games the best skills to invest in are running and diplomacy because they let you avoid the risks of combat. Sure, I don't run D&D, but it would likely still apply if I did.

[Taevyr]

I want to go back to this, because now I've had a roll night's sleep.

Yeah, that hasn't been the 'correct' way to play D&D for a long time. It's certainly a correct way to play it, but the core assumption that the ogre will try to kill you if you try taking to it was never something the game stated as objective truth.

And that's before settings like Planescape came out and started exploring the assumptions. 'I killed them because they're Chaotic Evil' is not a defence in Sigil. How much the designers think the genre should be about killing evil dudes had varied massively over the years, and was probably strongest in 4e (, which unlike 5e at least admitted it was focused on combat).

In my games the best skills to invest in are running and diplomacy because they let you avoid the risks of combat. Sure, I don't run D&D, but it would likely still apply if I did.

Yeah, I also tend to prefer playing tabletop like that: don't get me wrong, sometimes it's fun to pick up dark heresy and just go smiting some heretics or orcs or such, but such play needs a setting like 40K to work, in my opinion. If your homebrew D&D-setting's built for such adventures and you have players that enjoy them, great! All the more fun for you and yours. But I'm fairly certain that most players these days don't come to the table expecting that black-and-white morality.

[Cheesegear]

but the core assumption that the ogre will try to kill you if you try taking to it was never something the game stated as objective truth.

The Ogre will try and kill you if it's hostile and attacking.
To make it not try and kill you, it has to be not hostile and attacking.


But I'm fairly certain that most players these days don't come to the table expecting that black-and-white morality.

Yeah, after I watch the news in the morning, and go to and come home from a day of work, there's nothing I like more than trying to tackle complex socio-economic issues in a world that isn't even real with my friends, because that's what I like most about escapist power fantasy. :smallsigh:

[King of Nowhere]

Yeah, after I watch the news in the morning, and go to and come home from a day of work, there's nothing I like more than trying to tackle complex socio-economic issues in a world that isn't even real with my friends, because that's what I like most about escapist power fantasy. :smallsigh:

I like that and my group likes that.
Don't get me wrong, there are still evils that must be smitten and dark destructive forces that must be contained, but most plots involve humanoid opponents with reasonable motivations that can potentially be persuaded.

My old group did not like the complex plots, so we stopped with that group and me and another player then started a new group. I'm still good friends with the old group and we still hang around, though not as often as before.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, I also tend to prefer playing tabletop like that: don't get me wrong, sometimes it's fun to pick up dark heresy and just go smiting some heretics or orcs or such, but such play needs a setting like 40K to work, in my opinion. If your homebrew D&D-setting's built for such adventures and you have players that enjoy them, great! All the more fun for you and yours. But I'm fairly certain that most players these days don't come to the table expecting that black-and-white morality.

I mean, there's nothing wrong with just going on a righteous killing spree. I don't complain about a game being a series of combat encounters. I just take issue with the idea that killing people is the default.


Yeah, after I watch the news in the morning, and go to and come home from a day of work, there's nothing I like more than trying to tackle complex socio-economic issues in a world that isn't even real with my friends, because that's what I like most about escapist power fantasy. :smallsigh:

Sounds lovely, when can we start?

Some people want to turn their brain off after work, I like to turn my brain on. Every approach is valid.

[Batcathat]

Yeah, after I watch the news in the morning, and go to and come home from a day of work, there's nothing I like more than trying to tackle complex socio-economic issues in a world that isn't even real with my friends, because that's what I like most about escapist power fantasy. :smallsigh:

I feel like there's a middle-ground somewhere between having to tackle complex socioeconomic issues and having the bad guys being literally objectively Evil. There's plenty of fiction where the villains have understandable, even sympathetic, motivations for their actions that's no where near any real issues. Feels a bit like saying "After talking to humans all day I don't want to play a game where I have to talk to humans". But to each their own, of course.

As for the OP question, I think I have to go with a solid "maybe?". There have certainly been people I've played with that I've grown apart from (or just realized that we had rather different approaches to the game to begin with) but nothing serious enough to make me leave the game. That said, in several cases those groups kinda broke apart or faded away for other reasons, so I suppose it's possible I just never hit critical mass.

[False God]

Some people want to turn their brain off after work, I like to turn my brain on. Every approach is valid.

My job is not very mentally engaging, pays well, I'm good at it, but it doesn't get my brain going. I enjoy being creative and thinking through problems. I enjoy, as Cheesegear would phrase it, the "power fantasy" of being able to tackle fantasy versions of IRL issues on a level that IRL me just can't. And not just political ones (though if a kingdom is involved, the answer is always to some degree political), but saving a land from a great famine or drought by using magic to carve canals and and move water from A to B. Negotiating land use can be as fun and engaging for me as killing evil monsters who want to poison the land.

----
On the OP, I'm actually going through this right now, because I enjoy this kind of game that includes a mix of things. Sometimes we'll battle armies of undead, sometimes we'll negotiate water rights. But about half the table I was playing with were only interested in turning their brains off after work and putting an axe in the face of anyone who got in our way. No consideration of their position, no willingness to work with them, just the moment they weren't the friendliest most cooperative people they could be, AXE.

I'm trying to get enough people together for a new group where we can get that good mix of things.

[Cheesegear]

And not just political ones (though if a kingdom is involved, the answer is always to some degree political)

...Did you just say kingdom!?
The game is now derailed because somebody wants to talk about the ways and means of population control, and that a monarchy and hereditary power is inherently bad, whether the monarch is actually good or bad, everything is power. The party is morally obligated to smash the monarchy and replace the hereditary structure with a different system of government. Nothing can be done until at all until the system of government is changed.

...Yeah I'm not DMing that. Or rather, attempting to usurp and/or assassinate the local monarch is probably not going to go how you think it will.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or rather, attempting to usurp and/or assassinate the local monarch is probably not going to go how you think it will.

Agreed. Even with lots of power, the ship of state is unwieldy and needs lots of buy in from the people involved. Plus, the fantasy political situation will generally depend on a path dependant way on the fantasy culture. Just switching who is in power and how that's determined won't change much, or last very long.

The "lone (group of) adventurer(s) singlehandedly takes over a kingdom" trope isn't one that works very well most of the time unless the kingdom was already unstable and/or very small. As my party will find out if they try to go down over route they've been thinking of.

[Anonymouswizard]

...Did you just say kingdom!?
The game is now derailed because somebody wants to talk about the ways and means of population control, and that a monarchy and hereditary power is inherently bad, whether the monarch is actually good or bad, everything is power. The party is morally obligated to smash the monarchy and replace the hereditary structure with a different system of government. Nothing can be done until at all until the system of government is changed.

...Yeah I'm not DMing that. Or rather, attempting to usurp and/or assassinate the local monarch is probably not going to go how you think it will.

That's five. I'm sure that with enough Craft (Alchemy) checks and some planning I can get everything I need burning. And the eventual replacements.

While I've never played or run a game about rebelling against a corrupt authority (although I definitely should), that doesn't mean that there haven't been politically charged moments in games I've played. They just all tended to be about manipulating the system and public opinion instead of replacing it wholesale.

[False God]

...Did you just say kingdom!?
The game is now derailed because somebody wants to talk about the ways and means of population control, and that a monarchy and hereditary power is inherently bad, whether the monarch is actually good or bad, everything is power. The party is morally obligated to smash the monarchy and replace the hereditary structure with a different system of government. Nothing can be done until at all until the system of government is changed.

...Yeah I'm not DMing that. Or rather, attempting to usurp and/or assassinate the local monarch is probably not going to go how you think it will.

Okay, I get to kick back a bit and occasionally remind the players that this is an in-character debate about the proper political organization of a kingdom/city-state/nation/commune/territory. Noone rolls any dice, you get to make your arguments yourself in a calm and collected manner or I get to tell you all to stop.

Maybe the party agrees that what needs to be done is to take down the government. I'm happy to DM that. Sure, it's not going to be 5 guys toppling an empire, it's going to require allies, and time, and investment and the ever dreaded compromises. Pretty soon the Radical is upset that their rebellion is looking more like the thing he wants to smash and abandons the project but that doesn't mean the Rebellion stops. Maybe the party realizes the Kingdom isn't so bad and starts helping them stop the Rebellion. Maybe the party bails on the entire situation.

I'll run that. I'll play in that. But I'm not asking you to do so. That's why I'm looking for a group of like-minded folks who are interested in this stuff. That's why I've stopped playing with a divided group made up of 1/2 people who only want to smash stuff, and 1/2 people who want some engaging roleplay.

If I'm have to turn my brain off to play, by next session, I'm turning my engine off before driving to play that game. Not saying every game should be that way. But you should play with people who share your gaming desires.

[Cluedrew]

For me, I exist at one edge of a my friend groups role-playing interests so actually I just don't always play with them. The fact a campaign is starting with my role-playing group doesn't actually mean I will join it. And that's fine, because later there may be a campaign I am more interested in and we will all join together then. Although there was no "outgrowing", this is just something I knew since we started role-playing together.

On Weird Stuff: I have heard of objections over characters being married before, so that is definitely a line that changes for different people.

[Cheesegear]

While I've never played or run a game about rebelling against a corrupt authority...

Literally nobody said anything about a corrupt authority.
'Authority, by its nature, is corrupt. Especially something like a hereditary system of power.' - Somebody at my table, probably.

If this is not the kind of 'politics at the table' you are thinking of, then you don't know what I'm talking about. If it would get you banned on this forum, then that's what it was like, and that's why I'm not going to DM it.

[icefractal]

...Yeah I'm not DMing that. Or rather, attempting to usurp and/or assassinate the local monarch is probably not going to go how you think it will.Why not though? I mean, it's ok to have a campaign with a set focus, and/or run low-power stuff where overthrowing a kingdom isn't really in the cards, but it seems like you're presenting it as an obvious negative to change the world in ways beyond slaying ye dragon.

And I don't agree with that. "Status quo is king" can go jump in a Sphere of Annihilation. I don't even like it for comics, and they have more much of an argument for using it than a single play group that will never be commercially published does.

"You have the power to fight divine avatars and Godzilla-esque monsters, but making a change to the world?! Ha ha ha, get back in your lane, silly adventurers (your lane is killing the monsters we tell you to)" - that sounds pretty depressing, honestly.

And as far as motivation - why's that an issue? There have been anti-monarchists ever since there were monarchies, it's not anachronistic (to the extent that term even makes sense for something as un-historical as D&D).

[Xervous]

"You have the power to fight divine avatars and Godzilla-esque monsters, but making a change to the world?! Ha ha ha, get back in your lane, silly adventurers (your lane is killing the monsters we tell you to)" - that sounds pretty depressing, honestly.


It seems a little too easy for players to confuse inability to change one specific situation they care about with being unable to change anything. If they’re firing off blindly it could just be a series of unfortunate coincidences, but session 0 should establish constants and expectations for the setting. Mention of animal cruelty might get you somewhere with Druids, but the country with the long tradition of ceremonial bear baiting? That’ll just earn your character a laugh anywhere from a peasant’s hovel to the king’s court. If someone doesn’t want to pick a fitting role for the scenario, either we’d have found something else to play or found someone else to play with.

[Hagashager]

COVID has done a real number on my 2e group. One of my personal gripes is a sense that my players don't see me as a friend, but a GM. All but two of my players ever contacted me to talk, hang out or engage me beyond a silly gaming question. It's made me pretty jaded and a bit sluggish in trying to corral everyone together again.

Behind the curtain the players who I am friends with complained that the differences between each person are getting too hard to reconcile. We got one player who has taken it upon herself to vent politics and gossip about mutual friends despite actively getting upset if anyone else does so.

One of the two friends, in the interim, has started playing another friends' homebrew and is now put off by every other system because his buddy's game is just *that good*.

A third player has gone totally MIA. I'm told it's because the social differences finally got him and he's decided to walk away without telling me at all of this drama.

The end result is I think *I* am moving past these guys too. I'm thinking I'll join my friends' homebrew and see what all the fuss is about.

On the topic of weird sex stuff and/or politics: I think communication is the name of the game, but also a necessity for players to separate the player from the character they play. I've had several instances where my players went at each others' throats because of a political action in the game I was GMing. I try to avoid "no X" rules and allow players to do what they want, no matter how weird, or charged or kinky or radical it gets, but recently it seems the line between real-life and fiction is getting weirdly blurry.

Reading the argument in this thread leads me to suspect a similar notion. Some of you guys may just need to step away from the table for a bit and explore some other hobbies, and new people.

[King of Nowhere]

If this is not the kind of 'politics at the table' you are thinking of, then you don't know what I'm talking about. If it would get you banned on this forum, then that's what it was like, and that's why I'm not going to DM it.

ah, i sense you were scarred by a bad experience and you are trying to avoid anything leading to a repeat of such an experience.
I generally don't recommend it. it gives up too many possible opportunities. if you are afraid of horror stories at your table, you may as well give up gaming entirely

[Willie the Duck]

On the Cheesegear-inspired exchanges -- It takes all kinds. I don't think one 'outgrows' a group when one section of it wants to reenact the peasant scene from Monty Python's Holy Grail and prattle on about anarcho-syndicalist communes or whatnot and the other section of it wants to go bust black-hat heads. I think that's just a diverging of interests in game, same as when someone wants to play sci fi and someone else wants to play superheroes. Ideally if these are your close friends, some level of compromise can be reached and either a split-the-difference approach can be made or the group can take turns with favored style, but in the end if the group isn't playing a game in which you have interest, there's no harm in leaving or sitting out a campaign.

On the sex stuff -- roleplay is actually a perfectly reasonable place to live out fantasies one doesn't want to explore physically, however that should be a roleplay amongst and only amongst people who preemptively understood what they were getting into and consented in a non-pressured environment. Very likely not a regular roleplay group, and certainly not if anyone has an objection (and again the environment of asking if someone has an objection should be one where people feel safe in voicing them). That whole experience seemed like a not-good-fit and it is probably best that the people wanting to explore said fantasies found somewhere else to do it. One thing stuck out to me, however:


Yes.
When the female members of the group started using D&D to roleplay out weird sex stuff. Like, there are single guys in this group right now who are probably willing to do weird sex stuff IRL right now after the session if you asked them. Not sure why you D&D to roleplay it out instead of...Actually doing it. When I declared that there'd be no more weird sex stuff at my table, the girls left the group.
I don't know if you meant yourself or some other people in that group, but the underlined part comes off as a little creepy. It might not have been meant that way, but to me it raises alarm bells. It sounds a little too close to 'hey girls, this topic is not acceptable at the game table, but if you want to explore it one-on-one (or many-on-one) outside the game, my bedroom is right over there, knowwhatImean?' Mind you, people meet and fall in love or lust in many forms of activities, and gaming should be no exception. However, this kinda telegraphs that these guy's actual interest in their female fellow gamers was primarily as potential sex partners the whole time, which is usually a turnoff.


Of course it's fine to not want sex in your game, but that point's invalid.
"Co-writing a story that includes sex" != "Wanting to screw your co-writers"
Very much so.

As for groups I have outgrown -- yes. Or at least I had grown to the point where I had to diverge from the group (outgrown implies I've risen up to some level while they stayed behind, which is a touchy concept with regards to this scenario). What happened is that ~15-16 years ago now, I became manager to a group in which I'd previously worked. And, true to form, things changed, including whether being part of the gaming group felt natural. I was 'the boss' and that was that. I think they did a Friends episode where Chandler faced that reality (not with gaming of course). It kinda stinks, but also seems inescapable.

[Thrudd]

Yes.
When the female members of the group started using D&D to roleplay out weird sex stuff. Like, there are single guys in this group right now who are probably willing to do weird sex stuff IRL right now after the session if you asked them. Not sure why you D&D to roleplay it out instead of...Actually doing it. When I declared that there'd be no more weird sex stuff at my table, the girls left the group.


Dude. Facepalm. The biggest facepalm. Priorities, man.
Did this group include minors? Were the females sisters of someone in the group? Unless that is the case, it sounds like you made a big mistake. The creepy comment about single guys would imply these were all single young adults? This sounds like a huge missed opportunity to connect with someone.

A gaming group is usually a small number of people who become quite familiar with one another. If someone is comfortable enough to engage in romantic and sexy talk in front of you, even in the context of the game and not directed towards you specifically, then they are pretty comfortable with you. You have been handed a license to flirt, on a silver platter, signed and sealed by the President of the Universe. Don't be creepy. Keep it cool. But if you are a single young adult interested in another single young adult, tastefully flirting is one of the main ways to let them know.

These ladies wanted some romance and sexiness in their fantasy game, totally understandable. It's also understandable that this probably causes some fluttery feelings in other people in the group, which could be interpreted by them as discomfort. If you're a young guy interested in ladies, suck it up, man! Especially if you're the DM, you can inject a little romance in the game yourself. Not directed at anyone in particular, perhaps - but just play along with them when they want to do that. If they see a little bit of a romantic side to you, maybe fluttery feelings begin to occur outside the context of the game as well (if that isn't already the case). That is how many relationships start - people get to know each other in some social context, like a gaming group or workplace or school, they get comfortable with each other, they start flirting, and then they start wanting to spend time alone together to see what happens. There is nothing wrong with D&D, of all things, being an avenue for that to occur organically.

Instead of potentially making a romantic connection, you made them feel uncomfortable and they left. Of course they left, because you told them in no uncertain terms that you (and by proxy the rest of the group) are not interested in them. Which does not jive with the comment about the single guys in the group. Ladies usually want some kind of romance, bro. If you're interested in them and they're interested in you, then get to it! Play the game with them!

Yes, perhaps injecting some of your own flirting/romance into the game would not have been received well. Maybe it would have made them uncomfortable. If that was the case, they likely would have stopped doing it themselves so as not to instigate any more of it. Or maybe they would have left the group- but that's what happened anyway! You never know until you try. Respectfully, tastefully, always. For all you young, single people interested in someday making a romantic connection -give it a shot! Don't turn away the potential for love for the sake of a D&D game that you're talking way too seriously.

This seems like the golden age of TTRPGs to me. More women appear to be interested in gaming than ever before. 25 years ago, I would have killed to have even one single young lady in any of my gaming groups, let alone ladies making sexy talk! Bars and clubs were not my scene, and I imagine it isn't the scene of very many people on these forums, either. Gaming is our scene - and now gaming actually attracts some women!

Don't be me.
I understand what it is like to be the socially awkward, no self-esteem, avoidant personality who does not recognize or believe when someone is showing interest in him. Looking back at my life, I recognize now there were so many times that someone was giving me openings to flirt, were showing interest, were inviting me into situations where they wanted to see what I would do and how I would act. Every time, I shut myself down. I regret, every day, that I let all those opportunities pass me by.
Please, all you awkward young gamers who don't think anyone could like you - you're wrong! Realize that so many people feel exactly as you do - people of any and all genders. There is no such thing as a perfect scenario, if that's what you're waiting for. Yes, there will be rejection sometimes. You'll be wrong, sometimes. It won't work out and it will be awkward later. Maybe the gaming group loses members. But is the game really more important than a potential real connection with another human being? You might think so now, but I assure you it isn't.

[Anonymouswizard]

It's perfectly possible to be interested in discussing or role-playing sexual stuff with people without wanting to get their clothes off. It's also perfectly reasonable for it to be a sign that they see you as a close friend rather than a potential romantic partner.

Plus for all we know Cheesegear is and was happily married with no interest in polyamory at the time. We have no idea if they were among said "'single guys'.

There is no problem with flirting, of course, but again not everybody sees it as an inherently sexual or romantic thing. If you're interested in dates or sex you can talk to them about it, in private, to make certain. And if they say they aren't interested then that has to be respected. If they change their mind later it is for them to let you know without prompting.

Yes, this hobby tends to draw a lot of people who have trouble finding romantic relationships and/or having sex (and many who have no issue with either). No that does not mean that somebody of your preferred gender introducing sex into the game is an invitation.

And what if a player started doing what those girls did in my games? If the entire table was comfortable I'd be more than happy to play along, but consider it just is playing through a more mature/adult story (if people went happy we can fade to black after the kiss/run to the bedroom). Although admittedly if I wasn't in a relationship I'd probably be voicing my discomfort.

[Silly Name]

Yeah, after I watch the news in the morning, and go to and come home from a day of work, there's nothing I like more than trying to tackle complex socio-economic issues in a world that isn't even real with my friends, because that's what I like most about escapist power fantasy. :smallsigh:

My escapist power fantasy is fixing those issues, usually in simple and direct ways because I have the power to enforce them. When playing roleplaying games (which aren't limited to D&D) I'm usually handed the power to seriously change things in the setting, affect thousands of people in-game and make my mark on history. After slaying the umpteenth dragon, I kinda want to do something that's more long-lasting than killing the current baddie.

Most settings have a "absolutely messed up, authoritarian, evil country". Forgotten Realms has Thay, Greyhawk has Iuz's Empire: why wouldn't my heroic characters want to try to topple those? Why wouldn't my super-smart Artificer try to figure out how to improve a kingdom's agricultural tech so the risk of famine is diminished? Why wouldn't my noble barbarian who's built a city for himself not try to establish trade and political relations with his neighbours? Those are parts of the game that absolutely make sense in-fiction, not something I'm imposing on it.

I'm also absolutely ok with playing some good ol' fashioned "kick down the doors and kill the evil necromancer" game. I'm ok with playing absolutely reprehensible evil characters and do bad things if the game calls for it (Playing a zealous Inquisitor in WH40k who'll burn people for heresy, for example, or a Commissar who's perfectly ok with shooting Guardsmen to keep the regiment in line); I'm ok with playing low-stakes stories where I don't actually impact the game world, such as solving a murder mystery in Call of Chtulhu or clearing low-level dungeons in D&D.

I'm not ok with being told I'm playing D&D wrong if my characters try to talk with the opposition and defuse problems. I'm proud of my players solving issues without fighting because they prove themselves smart and able to reason with their opponents: if two kingdoms are at war, it's their right to not pick a side and instead seek a solution to the issue that won't result in thousands of soldiers dying. They're heroes, they do that!

Hell, last year they managed to solve a three-way conflict in the Feywild by liberating a bunch of halfling and gnome slaves from their Eladrin captors with the help of a red dragon and then they tricked the dragon so they could liberate the slaves for real instead of handing them to the dragon, and first had got the artifact they wanted from the Eladrin. They used their contacts with powerful, important people to pull this off and, most importantly, their wits. Number of fights involved in this three-session (meaning almost twelve hours of playtime) long plan: 2, one against a bunch of cave monsters and one against some guards when they broke out the slaves. And they got to stick a middle finger out both to the Eladrin *******s and the evil, scheming dragon. Should have I told them it was wrong to not resolve all the problems by killing the bad guys?

[Thrudd]

It's perfectly possible to be interested in discussing or role-playing sexual stuff with people without wanting to get their clothes off. It's also perfectly reasonable for it to be a sign that they see you as a close friend rather than a potential romantic partner.

Plus for all we know Cheesegear is and was happily married with no interest in polyamory at the time. We have no idea if they were among said "'single guys'.

There is no problem with flirting, of course, but again not everybody sees it as an inherently sexual or romantic thing. If you're interested in dates or sex you can talk to them about it, in private, to make certain. And if they say they aren't interested then that has to be respected. If they change their mind later it is for them to let you know without prompting.

Yes, this hobby tends to draw a lot of people who have trouble finding romantic relationships and/or having sex (and many who have no issue with either). No that does not mean that somebody of your preferred gender introducing sex into the game is an invitation.

And what if a player started doing what those girls did in my games? If the entire table was comfortable I'd be more than happy to play along, but consider it just is playing through a more mature/adult story (if people went happy we can fade to black after the kiss/run to the bedroom). Although admittedly if I wasn't in a relationship I'd probably be voicing my discomfort.

Yes, understood. I took the "single guys" comment to imply that someone in that group was said single guy that would have been interested, if not the DM himself. As troubling as the wording of that comment was, I took it as an expression of sexual frustration that my long-gone teenaged self would have identified with. And of course flirting and sexy talk in a game doesn't always mean it is wanted in real life. But sometimes it does. That is my point. You never know, so if you are someone interested (maybe the OP wasn't), then don't pass up a chance to find out. Don't be creepy, obviously, don't target another player with unprompted advances. Don't assume anything. Maybe in-game romance just stays in the game. But if you're interested, and everyone in the group is an adult, don't be afraid to play along a little, rather than shutting it down immediately. You might encourage someone that was on the fence about you that they want to find out more outside the game.

If you are someone that would make the sort of comment Cheesegear made about the "single guys", I'd take it you are someone who both wants a romantic connection and also was not successfully making them, or at least knows people in that situation. Tip-toing into flirting, with people who are initiating the sexy talk themselves, in the context of a comfortable social gathering (the gaming group), seems like a pretty safe way to indicate your interest. Of course, that's only step one. If anyone makes it clear they aren't comfortable anymore, then it stops. If you potentially want a romantic connection, however, you might need to overcome a little of your own discomfort and be a little vulnerable in front of people, putting yourself "out there". It is sometimes hard to tell when it's the right time to do that, especially when you're like I was. Playing along with what someone else initiates, right in front of you, seems one of the safest bets to make.

[Willie the Duck]

Plus for all we know Cheesegear is and was happily married with no interest in polyamory at the time. We have no idea if they were among said "'single guys'.
Correct, I don't think we can say we know a single thing about Cheesegear individually from this exchange. It is the sentiment vaguely inferred (this sexual stuff is unacceptable in this group... unless it entails a guy in the group getting lucky), and even then it could be just unfortunate wording (raise your hand, anyone, if you've never done that in a post).


Yes, understood. I took the "single guys" comment to imply that someone in that group was said single guy that would have been interested, if not the DM himself. As troubling as the wording of that comment was, I took it as an expression of sexual frustration that my long-gone teenaged self would have identified with.

I think a lot of people could identify with the idea of 'young adult who doesn't have great luck with the opposite* gender, isn't quite sure what they are doing wrong, and would leap at the chance to find someone in their shared-interest-group who wanted to explore a sexual or romantic relationship.' Not everyone was that person, but probably everyone knew that person.
*or not

[Anonymouswizard]

Correct, I don't think we can say we know a single thing about Cheesegear individually from this exchange. It is the sentiment vaguely inferred (this sexual stuff is unacceptable in this group... unless it entails a guy in the group getting lucky), and even then it could be just unfortunate wording (raise your hand, anyone, if you've never done that in a post). [

Yes, and now I have to retrieve my hands from the underworld.

But yeah, both sides were in the right. Cheesegear had a right to not have sex intrude on his game, the girls had a right not to touch the bits of anybody at that table. Even the inferred 'just **** one of the men in the group' reads as much as poorly worded frustration as a suggestion that it was the ideal solution.


I think a lot of people could identify with the idea of 'young adult who doesn't have great luck with the opposite* gender, isn't quite sure what they are doing wrong, and would leap at the chance to find someone in their shared-interest-group who wanted to explore a sexual or romantic relationship.' Not everyone was that person, but probably everyone knew that person.
*or not

Been there, done that, still can't flog the t-shirt to anybody. It took me five years of searching to even get a date with anybody, another three to meet anybody I could actually be in a relationship with without it imploding. I've thought the self destructive thoughts, although not to the level of some.

It's not that I don't have empathy. It's just that I very much wanted to highlight the problematic aspects.

[Jophiel]

I don't know if you meant yourself or some other people in that group, but the underlined part comes off as a little creepy. It might not have been meant that way, but to me it raises alarm bells.
I read it as "Sigh, go be horny somewhere else and not on game time" rather than waggling eyebrows. Especially since his response was to ban that stuff at the table and not to try to expand it beyond the table.

I agree that there can be valid reasons to want to role play that way (heck, "cause I wanna" is valid) and it doesn't mean you're actually looking to get down in real life but I charitably think he was lamenting "Why this **** at my table, go take that somewhere else and come back less obnoxious" than trying to actually see anyone hook up. He didn't care WHO they canoodled with, he just wanted to see them at the table canoodled-out and ready to stab displacer beasts instead of RPing "weird sex stuff".

[Phhase]

One of my personal gripes is a sense that my players don't see me as a friend, but a GM.

...That hits me more than I thought it might. I still remember a lovely group I had some time back. Every one brought their own flavor of interesting to the table, and all were model players. They always brought snacks without being asked, hell, one even brought in a well-made cake from a local bakery for their own birthday once! I did my best to make sure we all had fun, the campaign was always hard fought and interesting, I baked them sweet things to universal acclaim, it was great. Eventually though, their studies became too demanding for all of us to meet, and the group just...dissolved. Everyone stopped talking. Like it never was. I still can't believe they were real. I miss them.



I read it as "Sigh, go be horny somewhere else and not on game time" rather than waggling eyebrows. Especially since his response was to ban that stuff at the table and not to try to expand it beyond the table.

I agree that there can be valid reasons to want to role play that way (heck, "cause I wanna" is valid) and it doesn't mean you're actually looking to get down in real life but I charitably think he was lamenting "Why this **** at my table, go take that somewhere else and come back less obnoxious" than trying to actually see anyone hook up. He didn't care WHO they canoodled with, he just wanted to see them at the table canoodled-out and ready to stab displacer beasts instead of RPing "weird sex stuff".

The phrasing was admittedly off, but I'm fairly certain the sentiment intended was to the effect of "It would be so, so easy for you to literally NOT do that here and do it ANYWHERE else, I don't understand."

[kyoryu]

Yes.
When the female members of the group started using D&D to roleplay out weird sex stuff. Like, there are single guys in this group right now who are probably willing to do weird sex stuff IRL right now after the session if you asked them. Not sure why you D&D to roleplay it out instead of...Actually doing it. When I declared that there'd be no more weird sex stuff at my table, the girls left the group.

Because they.... want to? Seems easy. There may be any number of reasons that they want to explore that in a game rather than IRL, but honestly they don't matter. "They want to" is sufficient.

And even if they actually do want to explore those things IRL doesn't mean they want to explore them with anyone at the table, or even anyone they currently know.

To be clear, you're also perfectly in your rights to say "and I don't want my game being about that." But that doesn't mean they're Doing It Wrong. They're just doing it in a way that's incompatible with what you want.


D&D is a power fantasy. Everyone knows that. But when you start using D&D to roleplay out your political power fantasy that you learned from Twitter...That's not what D&D is for. You don't have to be doing that. I don't even understand why you're doing that...Yeah I don't think you're playing D&D right. The hostiles are Chaotic Evil monsters who are literally trying to kill you, and when you try and make friends with them, they'll likely still try and kill you.

Uh, that's what it is to you. I'll be honest, I'm not into those types of themes at my table much either, but.... your way of playing D&D is not the Only Way, or the Correct Way. It's just... your way. Their way is just as valid, but is probably incompatible with yours. And that's okay.



The phrasing was admittedly off, but I'm fairly certain the sentiment intended was to the effect of "It would be so, so easy for you to literally NOT do that here and do it ANYWHERE else, I don't understand."

That's mostly how I read it, with a small side of "if you're that thirsty, you don't have to look far."

[Anonymouswizard]

To be fair, with a Google search it's not hard to find homebrew 'sex in D&D' rules fort most editions and even drive attempts at 'sex the RPG'. Stone more hilarious than others, Burt there's definitely an interest in including sex in games even of most groups probably don't touch on it.

I've tried writing such rules myself. The most detailed, and not coincidentally the most likely to see use, are the business for determining if a random NPC is willing to do it and how they'll feel about it afterwards. Everything else I've written in this area is just had

[HidesHisEyes]

...Did you just say kingdom!?
The game is now derailed because somebody wants to talk about the ways and means of population control, and that a monarchy and hereditary power is inherently bad, whether the monarch is actually good or bad, everything is power. The party is morally obligated to smash the monarchy and replace the hereditary structure with a different system of government. Nothing can be done until at all until the system of government is changed.

...Yeah I'm not DMing that. Or rather, attempting to usurp and/or assassinate the local monarch is probably not going to go how you think it will.

I actually do think monarchies are inherently bad, but this sounds like a terrible way to play D&D.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Y
D&D is a power fantasy. Everyone knows that. But when you start using D&D to roleplay out your political power fantasy that you learned from Twitter...That's not what D&D is for. You don't have to be doing that. I don't even understand why you're doing that...Yeah I don't think you're playing D&D right. The hostiles are Chaotic Evil monsters who are literally trying to kill you, and when you try and make friends with them, they'll likely still try and kill you.


IMO, if your enemies are Always Evil Bad Guys who just want to kill you who you can't talk to and don't have other motivations, I think you're doing it incorrectly. That's basically like a dungeongcrawl or squad-level wargame exercise; we're looking for something with more narrative and character.

We talk to everything in the game I play in [to the marginal chagrin of the "GM: I crave violence!" people, but that guy just tunes out whenever he's not casting fireball], including giant force-of-nature sky monsters [they turned out to be pretty nice if you actually talk to them] and mid-level leaders in the enemy's organization to try to get them to surrender.

Also, I think discussions of politics are important, and the links to real life definitely make the game better. It add weight and the real-life connection and discussion of what's right and wrong and what's going on into the game, more than "PC's Commit War Crimes Part 8"


Yeah, I also tend to prefer playing tabletop like that: don't get me wrong, sometimes it's fun to pick up dark heresy and just go smiting some heretics or orcs or such, but such play needs a setting like 40K to work, in my opinion. If your homebrew D&D-setting's built for such adventures and you have players that enjoy them, great! All the more fun for you and yours. But I'm fairly certain that most players these days don't come to the table expecting that black-and-white morality.

Side note, IMO Dark Heresy or Black Crusade or the likes are the ideal setting for having discussions of serious topics like political repression, desperation, inequality, brutal crackdowns, disinformation, propaganda, terrorism, and the likes; and is not ideal for a happy-go-lucky-murder-things game. The world of Warhammer 40k is satirical, and thrives on showcasing all the ills of society. The underlying themes is that the Imperium is not good for it's people and is not a successful regime or set of policies [and you're supposed to find this funny].


Yeah, after I watch the news in the morning, and go to and come home from a day of work, there's nothing I like more than trying to tackle complex socio-economic issues in a world that isn't even real with my friends, because that's what I like most about escapist power fantasy. :smallsigh:

Tackling complex socio-economic issues is the best part! Since it's invariably a simplified structure because the GM probably doesn't simultaneously have a mastery level understanding of economics, political theory, and all of that, we can tackling major world issues and feel legitimately empowered to effect change.


Also, it's been joked that the games I run are "Katherine's Political Hour" and when playing the game, I like playing "C-SPAN, the game" ;).

[King of Nowhere]

My escapist power fantasy is fixing those issues, usually in simple and direct ways because I have the power to enforce them.

yes, exactly!

facing problems that are similar to those of the real world and being actually able to fix them is a much better power fantasy than fighting dragons.

[Crake]

When I realised that my games had become more about the players just playing different character builds, and focusing more on their mechanical abilities than investing themselves in the story going on. I tried changing every aspect of the game to see what stuck, before realising it wasn't my stories that were the problem, it was that the players just weren't coming to the table to engage with the story. So I just kinda stopped running games and transitioned to other, more story-focused forms of roleplaying. Last I recall, they've all gone and started playing pf2e, so I'm not super keen to get back into playing with them in all honesty, pf2e is really not my jam, I can barely stand dnd 5e as it stands.

I do still regularly run a solo game for one of the players that that did actively engage over discord, but I'm not rearing up to run a full fledged group game any time soon, I've instead been enjoying the rp scene in mmos, even if it has very rudimentary mechanics (often fights are straight d20 roll-offs with no modifiers), and is mostly freeform, the storylines that get woven through the sheer volume of players has a very addictive quality to it, and some groups are happy to use more complicated mechanics for players who are interested and proficient.

[Quertus]

When I realised that my games had become more about the players just playing different character builds, and focusing more on their mechanical abilities than investing themselves in the story going on.

I'm sorry to hear that. Although I've played with plenty of war gamers who had 0 RP skill, and didn't invest anything in their character (not that all war gamers are like that, mind - just look at me!), I've rarely had anyone - and certainly not an entire table - who didn't engage the story / setting. I can't even imagine what that must have been like. :smallfrown:

[kyoryu]

A lot of these feel more like "I realized I don't want the same thing as my table" and less like "I outgrew my table." The latter has some negative connotations I don't think are always appropriate.

It's okay to want different things, but that doesn't mean one set is somehow "better" or "more involved".

[Easy e]

I outgrew my table because I was a baker, and ate too much of my own delicious product.....



...... oh wait.

[TyGuy]

A lot of these feel more like "I realized I don't want the same thing as my table" and less like "I outgrew my table." The latter has some negative connotations I don't think are always appropriate.

It's okay to want different things, but that doesn't mean one set is somehow "better" or "more involved".

You interpreted the connotations. Not looking for a semantics argument. Especially when the OP elaborates on the title question.

Call it whatever you want. "Drifting apart" "diverging interests" there's lots of ways to say the player/GM one was two years ago is no longer the player they are today and they're no longer aligned with the interests of their table.

[Tarmor]

Slightly different twist here... I feel my table has almost outgrown one of my players.
He was always distracting in game sessions - reminding people of things they may or may not have remembered to take into account (like buffs or special abilities), then not knowing what he wanted to do with his character on his action. He would bring up up-topic questions (rules, spells, abilities) during other peoples actions, interject non-game comments into discussions, etc.
Due to age and life stress, he still does this, but is now forgetting simple game mechanics, miss-remembering what equipment/abilities he has, and going off for a lie-down or to sit apart because he's not used to the noise or all of us together. On top of this, he's now almost desperate for us to get together when we can because of covid lock-downs and not having other friends he can do much with.
I sympathize with his concerns and problems, but there's a few of us who are quite pleased if he says he can't join us for a game.
I don't actually want to turn him away - he's still a good friend. My wife says our gaming is just the excuse that get us together to have fun - and she's right. We always have a long catch-up before gaming, and breaks in between. I just really want to focus on the gaming when we get into that and I'm not enjoying that as much as I could be.

[ahyangyi]

Slightly different twist here... I feel my table has almost outgrown one of my players.
He was always distracting in game sessions - reminding people of things they may or may not have remembered to take into account (like buffs or special abilities), then not knowing what he wanted to do with his character on his action. He would bring up up-topic questions (rules, spells, abilities) during other peoples actions, interject non-game comments into discussions, etc.
Due to age and life stress, he still does this, but is now forgetting simple game mechanics, miss-remembering what equipment/abilities he has, and going off for a lie-down or to sit apart because he's not used to the noise or all of us together. On top of this, he's now almost desperate for us to get together when we can because of covid lock-downs and not having other friends he can do much with.
I sympathize with his concerns and problems, but there's a few of us who are quite pleased if he says he can't join us for a game.
I don't actually want to turn him away - he's still a good friend. My wife says our gaming is just the excuse that get us together to have fun - and she's right. We always have a long catch-up before gaming, and breaks in between. I just really want to focus on the gaming when we get into that and I'm not enjoying that as much as I could be.

Sad story. The thread started with "outgrowing" but, then, growing is aging...

[HidesHisEyes]

I think it’s not always about switching your brain on vs switching it off. For me, if I’m playing D&D 5E then I want a lot of combat, not because I want to switch my brain off but because I want to *play the game*, ie engage with its mechanics and - at the risk of starting a whole new argument - D&D 5E is mechanically mostly about combat. Negotiation, political manoeuvring and all sorts of other things can certainly be done in D&D, but as there are no *specific* mechanics for them and even more importantly no gameplay structures to support them, doing them for a sustained period tends to become a very loose, unfocused activity, and not much fun for me personally.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think it’s not always about switching your brain on vs switching it off. For me, if I’m playing D&D 5E then I want a lot of combat, not because I want to switch my brain off but because I want to *play the game*, ie engage with its mechanics and - at the risk of starting a whole new argument - D&D 5E is mechanically mostly about combat. Negotiation, political manoeuvring and all sorts of other things can certainly be done in D&D, but as there are no *specific* mechanics for them and even more importantly no gameplay structures to support them, doing them for a sustained period tends to become a very loose, unfocused activity, and not much fun for me personally.

I could of days ago I got into a 'heated discussion' with a friend of a friend over whether or not D&D5e is a good system (suffice to say it's over-prominence does not help my position). One of the things I ended up don't was '90% of the time to system you're playing doesn't matter' because most of the time spent playing D&D is not spent interacting with the actual game.

I've also gone the other way compared to you, I like games which don't treat combat as special and let an entire firefight be resolved with a single roll. I like Fate, and have recently begun looking into the Forged in the Dark games more throughly since they seem to have gone all in on mechanically representing narrative arcs (and are also designed for shorter campaigns, which is my preference). I want to emulate things, not just get into tactical combats.

Plus who doesn't want to play a game that's one part Firefly, one part Cowboy Bebop, one part Blake's 7?

[PhoenixPhyre]

For me, personally, the way I want to play TTRPGs differs fundamentally from how I want to play board or video games. In a TTRPG, I want my interactions with the system to be as minimal and as transparent as possible. I want the system to provide tools to help me resolve common situations and to provide a common language/imagery. That's all. I don't want to play the system, I want the system to support where it needs to and get out of the way the rest of the time. And that means I strongly favor speed and ubiquity over fidelity. No lookup tables, no different subsystems for different scenarios, no "social system" different from the basic one. Ideally one "resolution mechanic", with most of the meaning of that (beyond simple "success/failure") left up to the situation and the people involved.

Board and video games are much more about the mechanics, because they can't be about the immersion in a "world that could be real". And because in one case, the mechanics are all that exists (everything else is a facade) and in the other case the computer handles all the calculations and everything has to be either pre-computed or procedural (including AI) anyway.

I should stress that these are preferences, not truths.

[HidesHisEyes]

I could of days ago I got into a 'heated discussion' with a friend of a friend over whether or not D&D5e is a good system (suffice to say it's over-prominence does not help my position). One of the things I ended up don't was '90% of the time to system you're playing doesn't matter' because most of the time spent playing D&D is not spent interacting with the actual game.

I've also gone the other way compared to you, I like games which don't treat combat as special and let an entire firefight be resolved with a single roll. I like Fate, and have recently begun looking into the Forged in the Dark games more throughly since they seem to have gone all in on mechanically representing narrative arcs (and are also designed for shorter campaigns, which is my preference). I want to emulate things, not just get into tactical combats.

Plus who doesn't want to play a game that's one part Firefly, one part Cowboy Bebop, one part Blake's 7?

Oh I have absolutely gone the same way as you. These days I would always choose to run Dungeon World over D&D, and I love Blades in the Dark as well, for all the same reasons you cite. I do actually also like a bit of crunchy character building and tactical combat sometimes; it’s just that if I am playing that kind of game (5E or, the campaign I’ll be playing in soon, PF2) I want to play them the way they’re clearly designed to be played.


For me, personally, the way I want to play TTRPGs differs fundamentally from how I want to play board or video games. In a TTRPG, I want my interactions with the system to be as minimal and as transparent as possible. I want the system to provide tools to help me resolve common situations and to provide a common language/imagery. That's all. I don't want to play the system, I want the system to support where it needs to and get out of the way the rest of the time. And that means I strongly favor speed and ubiquity over fidelity. No lookup tables, no different subsystems for different scenarios, no "social system" different from the basic one. Ideally one "resolution mechanic", with most of the meaning of that (beyond simple "success/failure") left up to the situation and the people involved.

Board and video games are much more about the mechanics, because they can't be about the immersion in a "world that could be real". And because in one case, the mechanics are all that exists (everything else is a facade) and in the other case the computer handles all the calculations and everything has to be either pre-computed or procedural (including AI) anyway.

I should stress that these are preferences, not truths.

This is really interesting because I feel the opposite way to you about mechanics in RPGs, but I end up with similar preferences (relatively rules-lite, universal core mechanic).

I don’t want lots of rules and mechanics, but I do want the ones there are to play a very active role in the game and the creation of the narrative. I think of this as “rules positivism” (sorry I know it sounds pretentious): the idea that the rules can actively, positively contribute to the creative act that is roleplaying, rather than playing a negative role where they just reign in or put boundaries around the players’ own creativity. The presence of the mechanics, the game itself, as a force that shapes the narrative and eases the creative effort the players have to put in, is very central to my idea of what an RPG is. I agree it’s fundamentally different from a board game or video game, but I think it’s also fundamentally different from free form roleplaying or collaborative storytelling.

But as you say, 100% preferences and not a truth claim.

[KorvinStarmast]

A lot of these feel more like "I realized I don't want the same thing as my table" and less like "I outgrew my table."
I outgrew RPGs for about a decade.
Guess I'm now indulging in my second childhood. :smalltongue:

[HidesHisEyes]

I outgrew RPGs for about a decade.
Guess I'm now indulging in my second childhood. :smalltongue:

Good for you!

[Stonehead]

I've definitely drifted apart from my original group. We still play together most weeks, but our interests don't align much anymore. Back in highschool, everyone loved running around, fighting monsters, and looting treasure. Not necessarily murder hobos, but not far off. Since then, after growing up, and playing with other groups, I've started to get more invested in character arcs, and story progression. Problem is, no one else really cares. I've tried to create character moments, both as a player with my own characters, and just creating tough choices, or conflicting scenarios as a DM. It's never gone well. People started complaining that there's no "perfect route" in my games, and my characters were annoying.

It's totally possible that I'm just really bad at character development, but it's also possible that the old group just has 0 interest in that side of the game.

[TyGuy]

I've definitely drifted apart from my original group. We still play together most weeks, but our interests don't align much anymore. Back in highschool, everyone loved running around, fighting monsters, and looting treasure. Not necessarily murder hobos, but not far off. Since then, after growing up, and playing with other groups, I've started to get more invested in character arcs, and story progression. Problem is, no one else really cares. I've tried to create character moments, both as a player with my own characters, and just creating tough choices, or conflicting scenarios as a DM. It's never gone well. People started complaining that there's no "perfect route" in my games, and my characters were annoying.

It's totally possible that I'm just really bad at character development, but it's also possible that the old group just has 0 interest in that side of the game.

This is essentially what I'm dealing with. My beer and pretzels group generally doesn't want more from the game after a couple years, while I want epic stories and character arcs woven into the setting(s).

[False God]

I've definitely drifted apart from my original group. We still play together most weeks, but our interests don't align much anymore. Back in highschool, everyone loved running around, fighting monsters, and looting treasure. Not necessarily murder hobos, but not far off. Since then, after growing up, and playing with other groups, I've started to get more invested in character arcs, and story progression. Problem is, no one else really cares. I've tried to create character moments, both as a player with my own characters, and just creating tough choices, or conflicting scenarios as a DM. It's never gone well. People started complaining that there's no "perfect route" in my games, and my characters were annoying.

It's totally possible that I'm just really bad at character development, but it's also possible that the old group just has 0 interest in that side of the game.

Emphasis mine. As I've grown I've done the same. The world is full of a lot more situations with imperfect resolutions. Which is of course great fodder for new situations, but the folks I used to play with got notably chafed when they couldn't tie everything up with a bow every time. And I'm just not interested in running that kind of game anymore.

[Stonehead]

This is essentially what I'm dealing with. My beer and pretzels group generally doesn't want more from the game after a couple years, while I want epic stories and character arcs woven into the setting(s).


Emphasis mine. As I've grown I've done the same. The world is full of a lot more situations with imperfect resolutions. Which is of course great fodder for new situations, but the folks I used to play with got notably chafed when they couldn't tie everything up with a bow every time. And I'm just not interested in running that kind of game anymore.

Yeah, it's tough because I'm the one who changed. I can't really blame them for wanting light adventure games because that's what I wanted 10 years ago too. Now though, if everything's going to end up all sunshine and rainbows anyways, playing the game kind of feels like just going through the motions.

I hope it's just a difference in interest, and not me failing to DM consequential games well.