D&D: New Rules, New Players, Same Old Problems
Hawk and I have recently started branching out in D&D. We've both been playing the game for decades. In recent years, though, we've only played the long-term campaign I've been GMing. As the Coronavirus crisis has pushed roleplaying games mostly online- and online tools have gotten way better, necessity being the mother of invention- we've taken a new interest in trying other games and other groups. It's easier to solve the logistics of meeting new players & sitting down together when we're not limited by having to sit in the same room.
As we meet new players and try new games with them we find ourselves in old familiar territory. It recalls our experience from years ago, when we had just moved to this area and avidly sought new gaming groups. Sadly this familiar territory is not good territory. Back then we spent a solid year playing with various goofballs and jerks while trying enough people to find a set we truly enjoyed playing with. Today the game systems are new, the technology is new, and the players are new, but the human flaws we have to contend with are the same.
Recently we wrapped up a mini-campaign in D&D 5th Edition (not that the game system matters to this story). I had misgivings about the group from as early as our Session Zero. Three separate times I asked the GM a question about the setting, and Player 1- as I'll call him- interrupted to criticize my questions as unimportant or inappropriate. The GM did answer each of my questions but he did not admonish P1 to stop interrupting or to be more respectful.
It was evident there was going to be a challenging power dynamic in the group, where P1 considered himself the most important person in the room (hence the name "P1") and everybody else, including the GM, was content with his behavior. I knew I would have to either accept that or be ready to argue with him, repeatedly, to have fair say in the game. Frankly, I was on the edge of choosing to withdraw from the game at that point, during Session Zero. But, I figured, it's just a mini-campaign, 3-4 real sessions. I'd give it a chance to see how it goes.
There's a saying, "When someone shows you what kind of a person they are, believe them." Player 1's behavior as if he were the only important person in the game continued in subsequent adventuring sessions. Repeatedly he'd declare an action without consulting the rest of us. Worse, the GM supported his I'm-the-only-one-here attitude by allowing him to complete major solo actions before the rest of us could get a word in edgewise. It felt like P1 was playing an FPS and we were the AI bots supporting him.
I stuck with the game through all four sessions because... well, because it was only four sessions. I wanted to learn a new rules system and to practice being a player again after many years of only GMing. I decided I could put up with this guy's ego and casual disrespect for a short while.
The game wrapped recently, and there was discussion about what we could do next. The chat trailed off without a conclusion. That's fine with me; I doubt I'll want to play with that group again.
[This entry was cross-posted from https://canyonwalker.dreamwidth.org/24306.html. Please comment there using OpenID. That's where most of the action is!]
As we meet new players and try new games with them we find ourselves in old familiar territory. It recalls our experience from years ago, when we had just moved to this area and avidly sought new gaming groups. Sadly this familiar territory is not good territory. Back then we spent a solid year playing with various goofballs and jerks while trying enough people to find a set we truly enjoyed playing with. Today the game systems are new, the technology is new, and the players are new, but the human flaws we have to contend with are the same.
Recently we wrapped up a mini-campaign in D&D 5th Edition (not that the game system matters to this story). I had misgivings about the group from as early as our Session Zero. Three separate times I asked the GM a question about the setting, and Player 1- as I'll call him- interrupted to criticize my questions as unimportant or inappropriate. The GM did answer each of my questions but he did not admonish P1 to stop interrupting or to be more respectful.
It was evident there was going to be a challenging power dynamic in the group, where P1 considered himself the most important person in the room (hence the name "P1") and everybody else, including the GM, was content with his behavior. I knew I would have to either accept that or be ready to argue with him, repeatedly, to have fair say in the game. Frankly, I was on the edge of choosing to withdraw from the game at that point, during Session Zero. But, I figured, it's just a mini-campaign, 3-4 real sessions. I'd give it a chance to see how it goes.
There's a saying, "When someone shows you what kind of a person they are, believe them." Player 1's behavior as if he were the only important person in the game continued in subsequent adventuring sessions. Repeatedly he'd declare an action without consulting the rest of us. Worse, the GM supported his I'm-the-only-one-here attitude by allowing him to complete major solo actions before the rest of us could get a word in edgewise. It felt like P1 was playing an FPS and we were the AI bots supporting him.
I stuck with the game through all four sessions because... well, because it was only four sessions. I wanted to learn a new rules system and to practice being a player again after many years of only GMing. I decided I could put up with this guy's ego and casual disrespect for a short while.
The game wrapped recently, and there was discussion about what we could do next. The chat trailed off without a conclusion. That's fine with me; I doubt I'll want to play with that group again.
[This entry was cross-posted from https://canyonwalker.dreamwidth.org/24306.html. Please comment there using OpenID. That's where most of the action is!]