Having trouble at the table and need advice if I should leave or not

[Karos]

Thanks in advance for reading this long post but here goes,

So, my friends and I have been playing a 5e campaign for about 5 months now.

We have 9 players (the 9th was added recently) in the group and our gm is still pretty new, I think this is his first long-term campaign. I talked to him about 2 months ago, telling him what parts of the campaign I was having issues with and tried to give him advice. He did improve on some of the stuff I told him about.

One issue is the party size. We have 9 players which is a lot for new dms. All the players at the table are friends and we'll hang out outside of DND and it's a lot of fun. But most of them range from just starting to having played a couple one shots previously. This creates a lot of cross talk or confusion at the table, also increasing time spent in combat. This creates a pretty chaotic environment. It is hard for me to be able to play and a few times I left the games with headaches.

A majority of the session feels like a slog, especially in combat but do still have their highlights. The issue is that as we continue to play, the session becomes uncomfortable because he makes a ruling that feels weird or uninteresting.

For example, the ranger in our party had cast the sleep spell and knocked out an allosaurus and rolled well for a survival/animal handling check to secure ropes around it so it could become like an animal companion. The DM decided that it would be "too strong" and made a weird percentile roll heavily stacked against the ranger. The ranger failed and the dm decided that the animal was improperly tied and it suffocated to death.

I can attribute most of his mistakes to being a new DM and I try to help him where I can, but he'll make choices like this that are just less interesting or fun and it just bothers me. I don't feel comfortable challenging the decisions because "the DM's say is final" and I don't want to slow the game down further.

To add to this, another player decided to start running their first campaign for the same group minus a player. This dm is newer which led to the game being even more chaotic but everyone else seems to be enjoying it.

The final part is that both DMs allow full pvp between party members which caused an event that led to a 25min fight between 2 pcs that went nowhere. I'm not sure if this kind of pvp is common at other tables but it makes me uncomfortable and there's not much I can do to stop it.

I'm hoping this doesn't come off as just ranting about the dms, it's just that this has been affecting my mental health for the last couple weeks and I can't figure out what to do.

This leads me to my question, should I try to have the dm(s) have some kind of mid campaign session 0 (neither one started their games with one). Or should I just leave the tables for now and try playing again in the future. If anyone has other suggestions it would very much be appreciated because I'm not sure what else to do at this point.

Thank you for reading through this post and helping me out. :smallsmile:


Edit: Thank you everyone for you're responses. I have a lot to think about now.

[GloatingSwine]

The final part is that both DMs allow full pvp between party members which caused an event that led to a 25min fight between 2 pcs that went nowhere. I'm not sure if this kind of pvp is common at other tables but it makes me uncomfortable and there's not much I can do to stop it.


This is probably the reddest flag here. Even if you want PvP spending half an hour working out two people's in-game drama whilst 6-7 other people sit around not involved is a terrible plan.

(9 players is almost certainly too many for most games to sustain, especially ones where a fight takes 25 minutes to sort out, if you have that many players you want rules light high social interaction games)

[The Glyphstone]

No game is worth damaging your mental health away from the table. Everything else in the story is just red flags piled on top of that.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you have to ask ... I'd suggest you find another group, particularly as you are not happy about the PvP theme both tables embrace. PvP in D&D is not for everyone.

[Amnestic]

I don't know if 'leave' is the right move - at least initially. From what you've written most people seem to be having fun and the problems contained are more game mechanical than on a personality base.

9 players plus a DM is almost certainly too many people for a game. If you turn one of those 9 into a DM and split your group in two, you get two groups of 4+DM, which is much more manageable. It may be worth suggesting that (or even stepping up to DM yourself).

While full on PvP is definitely a rarity in D&D, it's not the end of the world, especially if the players involved are mature enough to deal with the consequences. There are games where it works. How it's being handled here is probably not the best though, so suggesting a session 0 to hash this sort of stuff out might be a good idea. Having a bunch of people sat doing nothing for half an hour on game's night is probably not the best way to spend it!

So, at least from what you've written: I don't think you should leave...yet. I think this could be salvaged if you get people together and air your concerns. You're probably not the only one (especially with the PvP sit-around-and-wait thing!) who's feeling the issues, and the DMs may be struggling with the group size but feel obligated to put up with it anyway.

[Vahnavoi]

Both tables are filled over capacity and neither is following a playstyle you like. Just quit and if asked for a reason, say the preceding sentence exactly. Since part of the reason is that there are too many players, there's little reason for either game master to be upset over one leaving.

There's a reason most tabletop games are for 2 to 6 players. An experienced game master can handle more, but another part of this is that neither is particularly experienced. Getting either to run a smooth 8 to 9 person game is a matter of time and practice, you can give them feedback but can't expect that to materialize into a significant improvements in the short term. Especially not if you have no experience running large games yourself.

[King of Nowhere]

Contrary to other people here, I don't see any real red flag there. Just mistakes caused by inexperience.
Because the DM is new and everyone else is new. The most experienced people only had a couple sessions before. So, hiccups happen. I don't get any real vibe that someone is a problem player (can't judge on the pvp fight because I don't have any detail), mostly that they are bonafide trying and fumbling. Unlike most people here, I certainly would not want to discourage a potential large batch of new players just because they don't have a veteran playgrounder level of experience on how to run smoothly a game, how to make dm rulings that are interesting and reward players for smart thinking without totally derailing the campaign, how to deal with player disagreement. I do remember similar issues myself in my own groups, and they all improved with time and experience.
And the party is certainly too big. But would you kick out some of your friends just because of that?

that said, if it's bad for your mental healt (mind you, this seem like a very extreme statement for a game), then you should leave for that reason.
Another option, since you appear to have more experience than the others, you could try to dm yourself.

[MoiMagnus]

9 players plus a DM is almost certainly too many people for a game. If you turn one of those 9 into a DM and split your group in two, you get two groups of 4+DM, which is much more manageable. It may be worth suggesting that (or even stepping up to DM yourself).

I'd add that this is even possible without stopping this campaign. It is possible for the PC group to be split in two, with both groups now existing within the same "universe" just living and adventuring in different places. Sure that means there will be a few sessions with everyone when the groups meet, but it's manageable to have a few sessions like that every once in a while.

Consistency might be harder to maintain, you just have to accept that sometimes what happens at one table is not really compatible with what happens on the other table "at the same time", especially when the second table player's actions have global effect you couldn't predict during the first table's session. But most players are quite forgiving of inconsistencies when it is due to the mess of handling 9 players.

[Kurald Galain]

A lot for new DMs? Nine players is a lot for any DM. Aside from being loud, that will slow (almost) any game to a crawl both in and out of combat; personally I would leave for this reason all by itself.

And yeah, the DM's thought process about the allosaurus strikes me as weird, but at most party levels, it will probably more fun for the rest of the party if that one guy does not get an allosaurus. Like, I've had one campaign where one character got a cohort for story reasons except the cohort was WAY stronger than anyone else in the party, and that's not necessarily fun for everybody else (in addition to, you know, slowing everything down even more). I tend to ban animal companions in any large group that's mostly new players.
And, well, you can't just train a friggin' dinosaur by knocking it out and tying a rope around it; the DM is well within reason to declare that you can't get an animal companion in that way.

In my experience, PVP is usually banned at tables, except if ALL players agreed beforehand that this would be an "evil" or "non-coop" campaign.

But, well, if everybody's having fun and you're not, then they're really not doing anything wrong and they just might have different expectations of the game than you do. I recommend subtly and neutrally asking a few other players what they think; if they agree with you, maybe the two DMs should each have a smaller group. If they don't agree with you, I recommend you quit this table. HTH.

[LibraryOgre]

To quote a great philosopher:

If you go there will be trouble; if you stay, it will be double.

Leaving the group may cause some social friction, to be sure. But staying in the group, which already has that social friction, and seems to be getting on your nerves? That's gonna be worse for you.

So, I'm here to let you know: You should go.

[Wintermoot]

Let me give you a different perspective.

The point of this entire interaction is to hang out and have fun with a group of friends. That should be your goal when you show up and play this game with them. Period. Everything else is window dressing.

If you drop out because you don't like how the game is going, that's fine. But bear in mind that this group of friends will continue to meet and play and hang out with each other, just without you there and participating. They aren't going to stop the game just because you stop coming.

I don't know how often you play or when, but let's say you play once a week, on saturdays between noon and 10 PM. Well, now you don't have anythign to do ON Saturdays between noon and 10 pm and this group of 8 of your friends are not goign to be available to do anythign with you becuase THEY are all hanging out and having fun together doing the game.

That might be fine. You might still be included and involved when they do other, non-game-related things (assuming they do do other non-game-related things) like movies, board game nights, chill out sessions or whatever.

But, IME, its likely that some of them might mistake this as you not wanting to hang out at all or be included in this friend group and it might cost you some social currency that you don't want to lose.

For example, if they are chatting during the game and someone suggests "hey anyone want to go see this movie this weekend" and a few of them agree to go, they are unlikely to think to invite you separately.

So there is a hierarchy of needs here that "just quit the game" doesn't address, and a hierarchy of steps you could take to "fix" this as much as it needs fixing, if it even needs fixing.

I would start with 'can I reset my own expectations so that this doesn't bother me anymore?" Based on your descriptions provided, I don't see anything that I wouldn't be able to just shrug and move on from, but you know yourself and your own limitations.

I would move on to 'is there a way for me to HELP this game be a better experience for myself.'

I would only THEN move on to 'is there a way for me to change this game to be a better experience for myself.' Because, right now, it seems like you are the only person actively having an issue.

[gbaji]

Not sure I'd just leave the group. As mentioned above, this is about socialization. Staying may allow you to steer things in a more enjoyable direction.

Having said that 9 players is pretty crazy.

I also chalk this up to a combination of inexperienced players *and* inexperienced GM. New/younger players often want to try things that are not reasonable or realistic or maybe even just not very well thought thorugh. Experienced players (and GMs) can (and often do) have to steer those players around such things. But, having been there, it can also come off a bit uncomfortable. You feel like you are constantly telling the new player what they "can't do". Which feels restrictive. Sometimes, you have to let these players do these silly things and learn why those are bad/unreasonable ideas.

But that's where an experienced GM comes in. The correct course would be to allow it. But then actually force the character to spend the time/effort trying to train this Allossaur. Have him spend X hours a day training it. Require an animal handling roll every time the bindings are removed or it starts trying to eat fellow party members (see how long that is put up with). Remind the Ranger how much raw meat it has to eat each day, which the party will have to spend time hunting for to keep it fed. Then make it take a *really* long time (like longer than the duration of the adventure) to complete its training (I have no clue what the actual rules are for this btw, so whatever). When faced with the reality of "we'll be spending more time on the rangers stupid pet than we're actually spending on the adventure", clearer heads may just prevail.

Um.. Also, aren't animal companions like half the level/hd of the ranger? So it's possible the Allosaur just can't be this ranger's companion anyway. Just seems like anything that's half the level of a party member should not be "too powerful" to be added to the party. So if that was correct, then the DM already had an out right there. Just maybe didn't realize it was available.

The actual choice made just screams "inexperienced GM" to me. Don't want the characters to have something, but can't think of a way to ensure they don't get it, so you arbitrate some really contrived thing to take it away. That's not a great way to do this. It's on the same level as "As you reach out for the item of power, a genie pops out of thin air, tells you you can't have it, and teleports away". Just.... don't.

[KorvinStarmast]

A lot for new DMs? Nine players is a lot for any DM. While we used to have sessions this large in "old school" dungeon crawls, we also had a Caller (which rotates with each session) ... nine is still a tall order.

And, well, you can't just train a friggin' dinosaur by knocking it out and tying a rope around it; the DM is well within reason to declare that you can't get an animal companion in that way. +1.

But, well, if everybody's having fun and you're not, then they're really not doing anything wrong and they just might have different expectations of the game than you do. I recommend subtly and neutrally asking a few other players what they think; if they agree with you, maybe the two DMs should each have a smaller group. If they don't agree with you, I recommend you quit this table. HTH. Or volunteer to be assistant DM. I have often played games with two on the Dm side of the screen. The assistant took care of a lot of dice rolling and detailed tracking of NPC/Monster stuff.

Let me give you a different perspective.

The point of this entire interaction is to hang out and have fun with a group of friends. That should be your goal when you show up and play this game with them. Period. Everything else is window dressing.

If you drop out because you don't like how the game is going, that's fine. But bear in mind that this group of friends will continue to meet and play and hang out with each other, just without you there and participating. They aren't going to stop the game just because you stop coming.

I don't know how often you play or when, but let's say you play once a week, on saturdays between noon and 10 PM. Well, now you don't have anythign to do ON Saturdays between noon and 10 pm and this group of 8 of your friends are not goign to be available to do anythign with you becuase THEY are all hanging out and having fun together doing the game.

That might be fine. You might still be included and involved when they do other, non-game-related things (assuming they do do other non-game-related things) like movies, board game nights, chill out sessions or whatever.

But, IME, its likely that some of them might mistake this as you not wanting to hang out at all or be included in this friend group and it might cost you some social currency that you don't want to lose.

For example, if they are chatting during the game and someone suggests "hey anyone want to go see this movie this weekend" and a few of them agree to go, they are unlikely to think to invite you separately.

So there is a hierarchy of needs here that "just quit the game" doesn't address, and a hierarchy of steps you could take to "fix" this as much as it needs fixing, if it even needs fixing.

I would start with 'can I reset my own expectations so that this doesn't bother me anymore?" Based on your descriptions provided, I don't see anything that I wouldn't be able to just shrug and move on from, but you know yourself and your own limitations.

I would move on to 'is there a way for me to HELP this game be a better experience for myself.'

I would only THEN move on to 'is there a way for me to change this game to be a better experience for myself.' Because, right now, it seems like you are the only person actively having an issue. That's great advice. Why self ostracize over a game?

[Satinavian]

One issue is the party size. We have 9 players which is a lot for new dms. All the players at the table are friends and we'll hang out outside of DND and it's a lot of fun. But most of them range from just starting to having played a couple one shots previously. This creates a lot of cross talk or confusion at the table, also increasing time spent in combat. This creates a pretty chaotic environment. It is hard for me to be able to play and a few times I left the games with headaches.9 players+DM is too many. It can be done, but only done poorly. As you have already at least one other person willing to DM, i think the best would be to split into two groups of 5 or maybe 4/6 depending on relations.


The final part is that both DMs allow full pvp between party members which caused an event that led to a 25min fight between 2 pcs that went nowhere. I'm not sure if this kind of pvp is common at other tables but it makes me uncomfortable and there's not much I can do to stop it.Some groups allow it some groups forbid it. Both is viable. However, even in groups where it is allowed it tends to be extremely rare. Usually because people build group conform PCs and have common goals. And because most players don't enjoy it.



This leads me to my question, should I try to have the dm(s) have some kind of mid campaign session 0 (neither one started their games with one). Or should I just leave the tables for now and try playing again in the future. If anyone has other suggestions it would very much be appreciated because I'm not sure what else to do at this point.You should speak up and seek a compromise before you go. Maybe others feel the same. Just don't try to force your way if they don't.