Should I Stay Or Should I Go

[CourtFool]

I finally found a Hero game in my area, so I should be happy right? Except the game is really not going to my liking. When we first met, the GM said the campaign would be low powered and gritty. Not usually my thing and I voiced as much. I was willing to give it a go though.

After many sessions, I am reminded why it's not my thing. The GM is not bad. There is one particular player who argues frequently over the campaign world. This completely floors me. I have seen my fair share of rules lawyers, but setting lawyers? When the world is homebrewed?!

There are not a lot of Hero gamers in my area, so I am reluctant to give up on another group. The group is small, four including myself. Leaving could jeapordize the group. I have mentioned a few times to the GM that I am not really into the gritty/realistic type games. The GM never really responded, granted I did not make a big stink about it. I did not want to be whiny player.

I am basically trying to play a faceman type character. He happens to be a Lord. The only influence I feel my character has had at all in the world is the fact that he is a Lord. All of my skills have seemed pointless. It does not seem to matter if I roll successfully or not, the outcome seems pretty much the same.

Last night particularly ticked me off. As I said, I am playing the faceman. Last night, we decide we are sneaking out of town past an opposing army. We decide to pass ourselves off as peasants believing the army would have nothing to gain from us. It is suggested to me by another player and the GM that I (the faceman of the group) should let the two freeman (NPCs) traveling with us do the talking. Now, it is not like the GM was playing his pet NPC or anything. The logic being they are not nobility while my character is a lord and the other PC is a knight. I can see the logic, but I am the freakin' faceman. What is the point if I am not suppose to play out the encounters my character was tailored for?

Normally I would just stop showing up and fail to return phone calls. But that is not really the mature thing to do. The mature thing would be to talk to the GM, right? But I seriously doubt that talking will change anything. So, do I just tell the GM I am just not feeling the campaign, thank him and be on my way?

[steamteck]

At least tell the GM you're not going to show up anymore. That's the polite thing to do. If you want to go the distance however you might want to explain your position first and see if he's willing to address your concerns or maybe they just slipped by him. I know I've certainly shifted gears before when a complaint has been mentioned. You never know until you try. I wouldn't stay with the group if you're unhappy just because its small though.

[Shaft]

Another option might be to change games: maybe you can offer to GM a different setting that you might be more passionate about (and a GM's passion often spills over to his players). If the other players are in the same boat as you and don't like the GM's style (the setting lawyer may not like the GM's style), they may be willing to give you a shot.

Is there any chance the GM is burned out? If so, he may even welcome the chance to be a player.

[Diamond Spear]

I will second the "offer to GM a different game" idea.

[CourtFool]

That is great advice.

I do not suspect GM burn out. The campaign is still new. We have played roughly once a week for about two months. The GM is very passionate about the campaign. The setting lawyer is close personal friends with the GM. The fourth player obviously prefers The Game Which Shall Not Be Mentioned. He refers to it constantly.

I believe the other three are also involved in another campaign using The Game Which Shall Not Be Mentioned. I have mentioned a time or two that I am planning on running a Pirate campaign. No one seemed terribly interested.

[Spence]

Well, for what it's worth, I would never stay in a game I am not able to enjoy. I wouldn't just disappear, but I would definitely speak to the GM and hash it out.

If your character has been designed to fill a role and the GM doesn't let you play it, why did he approve the character in the first place? But it may also be that he doesn’t realize what he is doing. He may have gotten into the habit of always dealing with the “old timers” and doesn’t realize he is not letting your PC function.

In the end, if the game isn’t going to change, punch out now rather than fester.

[Mister E]

About a year ago, some people at work I knew started up a D&D3.5 game, and I gave it a shot. Everyone was very enthusiastic, which was sweet because my regular old buddies and I were in the middle of burnout. 2 of the players had never played before, so it was proposed that we'd make classic-type adventurers. It was freaking crazy.

The two vets, the GM and his own personal old gamer bro, were hands down the worst out of the group. I don't think either of them even once attempted to talk in character. I felt like an eccentric at first, but the noobies picked up the ball pretty fast.

The player-vet rolled some kind of weird new warrior class that uses arcane magic and the spiked chain weapon. Like the class itself is all about the chain weapon somehow. No idea where it's conception comes from. Possibly something to do with Jangling Hiter from the Planescape campaign setting. Pretty damn obscure for a main starting class, if you ask me. I was a bit pissed about his choice. Think he was NE to boot.

Anyhow, the most interesting part of the night for me was when we started down into this goblin dungeon, and got pretty darn screwed up by an ambush involving a pit-trap while we were something like 10 feet into the dungeon. All of us were wounded, and my character was down to 1 hitpoint. It was then that the player-vet with the magic chain warrior was like, "Let's go back to town and rest for a few days." My response to this was, "But what about the peasants that were kidnapped three days ago. If they are still alive, they aren't going to hold out for very much longer." "But I only have 3 hit points left." "It's just a flesh wound." The guy couldn't believe I actually wanted to press on and save the peasants all in one pass.

The noobies were scared, but both were excited about doing all they could. Going back to town was not the course of action a hero would take, and they knew it... so after about an hour of deliberation with the magic chain warrior, we pressed on. The choice was so perfect in the end. I mean, we were seriously screwed.

The next battle was with the dungeon boss in his nifty-cool dungeon-appartment. I went down hard. The chain-dude went down hard. The two noobies fought to the end and saved us both. I was at -8 hitpoints and still bleeding by the time I got first aid.

The peasants were still further in some kind of POW pit guarded by lots of gobbies... but unfortunately, we ended up setting up camp in the dungeon-boss's appartment for an 48 hour (possibly 72) nap to heal. I wanted desperately to tell the two noobies to go on with out me; but breaking up the party was the point were my emersion-factor quit working to the relief of all.

I never played with them again. It was just too hack-n-lash/meta-gaming for me. Quite possibly the worse roleplaying experience in my life. Way worse than any single night of vampire-LARPing back in the 90's. In fact, I kind of felt dirty afterwords.

[Spence]

About a year ago, some people at work I knew started up a D&D3.5 game, and I gave it a shot. ---snip---

Sounds almost familiar, I gave 3.5 a honest try a while back, the new class/uber class/special whatever class thingy is pure unvarnished munchkin. At the FLGS the store munchkins err… store players tend to mostly play 3.5 and the parties are mostly composed of something a bad LSD trip would have conjured in the 60’s.

GM: Your party (3 4rd level PC’s) crests the ridge and 10 million goblins attack!

Player 1: “My ½ elven ½ centaur spellcasting dragon kin flame throwing fairy kendar priest thief” readies his two-handed ancient artifact sword of ultimate world destruction!”

GM: Nope, you can only ready it if you have the “No Dinkum” feat. Flip flip flip, did you take the “Yes Dinkum” feat when you were 2nd level and not a thief yet? No! Then you can never use the two-handed ancient artifact sword of ultimate world destruction because “Yes Dinkum” is only available to 2nd level ½ elven ½ centaur spellcasting dragon kin flame throwing fairy kendar priests and you missed it and so can not get “No Dinkum”.

Player 1: But that can’t be right, the write up on ½ elven ½ centaur spellcasting dragon kin flame throwing fairy kendar priest thief doesn’t say anything about having to have “No Dinkum” to use the two-handed ancient artifact sword of ultimate world destruction.

GM: It doesn’t there, but the paragraph in Volume #32, change 4 of the Book of Absurd Artifacts does on page 54.

Player 1: Really! I don’t have that book. Well since everyone knows the game isn’t broken it must have been me. Can I re-design the character before the combat starts?

Player 2: No need. I just bought the new Uber-Munchkin Manual of Doom and my character spent 18276549163 of his spare experience from that last game session and is now a new Prestige class. The Spiked Blender of Doom Wielder Knight Thingee. Plus I now have the “Unspecified Act” Feat! They don’t stand a chance, according to the Feat, goblins must form a line so I may kill them one at a time. My PC also never tires it’s a class thing.

GM: Darn! I guess that is another 10 million goblins dead.

All: Oooooo wasn’t that fun??:eek:




:sneaky:

[input.jack]

Ive played in and even run some good D&D 3.5 games. The secret is that my game group doesnt use pregenerated Prestige Classes, or any classes not in the Player's Handbook (or PH II now that its come out. Ive got a Knight). We craft our own Prestige Classes to fit into our game worlds, and we try -darned- hard to keep them on par with core classes. The core classes are "core" for a reason, right? A Player who plays a character to 18th Level and stays with Fighter all the way should feel as happy about that choice as the guy who took a prestige class.

It aint fun unless everyones having fun.

As for the horrible gaming experience you had; do the two newbie players a tremendous favor and recruit them OUT of that group and INTO one of your own! Dont make them have to game with those guys anymore!

[Mantis]

So, do I just tell the GM I am just not feeling the campaign, thank him and be on my way?That would be what I would do. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, if you aren't having fun, don't play.

[Trebuchet]

That would be what I would do. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, if you aren't having fun, don't play.What he said.

It's courteous to at least inform the GM you're leaving; once you do that you can walk away with a clean conscience.

[Vondy]

Normally I would just stop showing up and fail to return phone calls. But that is not really the mature thing to do. The mature thing would be to talk to the GM, right? But I seriously doubt that talking will change anything. So, do I just tell the GM I am just not feeling the campaign, thank him and be on my way?

Just tell him the game isn't a good fit for you, thank him for the sessions, and move on. You don't have to explain why its not a good fit, or discuss the issue at length. Just give him a heads up and go your own way. Its the most correct way of dealing with it, in my opinion, and leaves you spotless in the etiquette sense.

[Vondy]

This completely floors me. I have seen my fair share of rules lawyers, but setting lawyers? When the world is homebrewed?!


Get a rock.

[ghost-angel]

Get a rock.

You know, when Von D-Man says to get a rock, I'd find a hefty one with pointy edges. Because really, it's that bad.

[Clonus]

Does your character have Acting? If not, learn it so you can pretend to be a peasant with the best of 'em.

[Blue]

Be truthful. Explain to him why your not coming.
Thank the GM for running, regardless of how it all came out.

The "just don't show up" option is pretty cold to a GM who might be looking for a minimum number of players. I've got a player like that. I pretty much take a headcount of everyone else and if she shows up, that's just a plus.

[Rapier]

Show up naked.

[John Desmarais]

Show up naked.

Best idea yet. :thumbup:


Actually, I like the idea of offering to run a game yourself. If your meeting once a week you're playing often enough to occasionally swap between game (do each game for a couple of session until you hit a good pause point, the swap).

Offer up something "completely different" and see if you can initiate a little social engineering that spills over to the other game.

[Vondy]

Show up naked.

Well, waiting for an arraignment ought to get you out of at least one session.

[Log-Man]

Show up naked.


Best idea yet. :thumbup:


Actually, I like the idea of offering to run a game yourself.
Even Better: Offer to run a game naked.

[Greywind]

I only accept offers like that from attractive, female GM's...

[Inu]

Sounds almost familiar, I gave 3.5 a honest try a while back, the new class/uber class/special whatever class thingy is pure unvarnished munchkin. At the FLGS the store munchkins err… store players tend to mostly play 3.5 and the parties are mostly composed of something a bad LSD trip would have conjured in the 60’s.
I'd like to point out the folly in judging a game system based on a small interaction with a very few players, and that points-based systems are BY FAR more open to abuse than class/level-based systems... but that's been gone over time and time again, so I have no illusions that it will be heard this time. ^_^; Nevertheless, I feel compelled to at least leave that.

As for the main topic, it doesn't sound like they have much need for a 'face' anyway. ^_- Calling would be preferable... but I've personally done the 'disappear' thing myself, mostly because I couldn't find a way to explain my grievances without saying 'you're an idiot'. (I can deal with character death. I can deal with GMs making mistakes. But a GM who makes mistakes that lead to my character dying and, when gently reminded about those mistakes, says 'oh, that's right. I'll remember that.' and leaves my character dead? That's kind of against contract. Couldn't think of a polite way to say he sucks rocks, so I left it there. Cowardly, yeah, but hey. It's not like I'd been in the group long.)

[teh bunneh]

Having been in a position where I've had players vanish without a word, I'd suggest that you at least email the GM and let him know. It's a pain in the butt to prepare a space at the table for someone you think will be showing up, to prepare bits for them in the adventure, etc, and then not have them show up. If people would call and at least say, "Hey, something's come up and I can't come any more; I'll call you if things change" would be the polite thing to do. Even better would be a, "I'm sorry, but I don't think our gaming styles are a good match. Thanks very much for inviting me, and maybe I'll see you around."

That said, if you think the game is salvagable, talk to the GM and let him know why you're disappointed. He may have no idea, and be more than willing to change things around for you.

[John Desmarais]

Even Better: Offer to run a game naked.

So where in North Carolina are you? (I need to make sure I've got blinders with me if I'm gaming in your neck of the woods.) :eek:

[Just Joe]

If you are definitely giving up on the group, then I would recommend just calling or emailing to say you're dropping out (thanks, just not a good fit, etc. as per others above).

But I'm not sure you should give up yet. The fact that you've had so much trouble finding a group, together with the fact that the group is so small and might feel it needs you, makes me think that it might be worth trying to work out a mutually agreeable solution. This has the potential to be awkward for you and/or the GM. You don't want to seem whiney or demanding. He might not take criticism well. Or he might rather lose you than change how he runs (which can be uncomfortable for either or both of you depending on, for example, the level of your self-esteem and his ability to express himself diplomatically).

But if it works, it could be the best result for you and the rest of the group. You could probably copy and past your original post as a starting point, though you would have to edit it for diplomatic purposes. The goal should be to express in a non-judgmental manner what you are looking for in a game and to try to work out between you and the GM whether there is enough room for compromise for you to stay in the group, or whether it makes more sense for you to look elsewhere.

[handleyj]

Maybe you're lucky and the GM reads this forum, thus you're already out! :)

[Savinien]

If you stay it will be double.

[Enforcer84]

But we've got to let you know...
Should you cool it or should you blow.

[CourtFool]

[the short]

I left.

[the long]

The GM has a Yahoo group for the campaign. I posted there for everyone to see, being as diplomatic as I could. I did not want to air any dirty laundry or accuse anyone of anything. I also wanted to let everyone know. I thought it seemed sneaky to just tell the GM.

I had told the GM when the campaign started that I did not generally enjoy low-powered, realistic campaigns. I leaned on that as a way out saying that my opinion had not changed and I just was not digging the campaign. As expected, the GM did try asking if I would consider staying if the campaign was made more cinematic. I really had concerns about this. What if the other players do not want to play a more cinematic game? What if even after the change I am still not happy?

I replied that I did not want him to change the game for me. I mentioned that I did not feel my character was impacting the world which frustrated me. I also said that I would rather bow out on good terms and maybe game together in the future. Although, I am pretty sure quitting means never playing together again.

The other two players jumped in stating they felt my character had impacted the world.

The GM and the (arguing) player are life long friends. The other player also plays with both of them in another The Game Which Shall Not Be Mentioned game. So I can not help but feel the odd man out.

I have trust issues. My life experiences have convinced me that arguing, even polite, well thought out and intelligent debate is pointless. People are not going to see my point of view. I know this is my own issue. However, I really do not see how I have anything to gain from 'talking this out'. I am not sure I could satisfactorily verbalize my complaints without descending down into, "You're stupid and not running the game the way I want you to."

Even if I did effectively get my point of view across, I doubt anything would change. Maybe for a session or two, but I am sure the GM would just ease back into habit. Not to mention I would simply feel attacked each time they told me, "…but your character was effective."

So I did what I thought was best. I have not responded back since I said I thought it best to part on good terms. I can not help but wonder if maybe I am not emotionally secure enough to game. When I quit every group I find, I am beginning to think it is me and not 'them'.

[input.jack]

Sounds like you did what was best for you, and did it in an honorable way.

Kudos. :thumbup:

And dont necessarily give up on gaming. Different people are looking for different things, and it can take some time to find whats right for you.

Might want to try some pick-up games at a local hobby shop, or something. Get to see some gamers before you get "into the group".

Just a thought :)

[Hyper-Man]

It sounds a lot like my gaming situation here in Tampa. I have little to no opportunity to play HERO games but have ample opportunity to play "the game which shall not be mentioned". I enjoy the company of the gaming group more than the style of game. Even if it's not everything I wish it could be its better than no gaming at all. This is from someone who before 2 years ago hadn't gamed in several years.