Ever outgrow your table?

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[HidesHisEyes]

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

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.