Over on another forum, there was a thread about some other stuff, but one comment stood out at me,
   "But this campaign will end soon. Soon it will all be over. I don't feel like I can quit, because the mission we are on is a hook based on my PC's backstory. So once we save the world [...] the campaign with be over, and we can move on to something else. Hopefully, we'll only have a few more sessions left."
I've seen comments a bit like this many times, and felt the same. "Okay this is not great but I asked the GM for this campaign so I have to stick it out," or "well it won't last much longer and I said I'd play so here I am."

It all seems rather like "doing your time", except without the crime.

Has anyone else felt like this? If so, why didn't you try to improve things, or just walk away?

As a cheetoist, I'm sure you're familiar with the meme that people are the top priority. Some people feel obligated to play in a friend's game, fun or not, is all.
The thing is, cool folks aren't automatically good GMs. Same goes for players.

Quote from: Kyle AaronHas anyone else felt like this? If so, why didn't you try to improve things, or just walk away?

Well, there are (at least) three possible paths, and they each have their own costs:

• Wait it out.  Cost:  Boring game-play.
  
• Talk to people about doing better.  Cost:  You have to confront people with the fact that they're boring you.  That makes them feel judged, and makes you feel bad for making them feel bad.
  
• Walk away.  Cost:  No game-play (which is better than boring, but not as good as exciting), plus people often read some judgment into your departure, which can lead to all the problems of trying to do better, only with less control and more chaotic misunderstanding.

Of the three, waiting it out is the option with the lowest risks ... and the lowest rewards.

I've done all three in my time.  These days I prefer the second:  I try to improve most any game that I'm participating in, and I make that clear ... I'm not trying to make things better because I judge that they suck ... I'm trying to make things better because I'm an inveterate tinkerer.  It seems to work for me, but I totally agree that mileage will vary.

In Long-Term campaigns, the sort I usually run, there's always periods, sometimes even lasting a couple of months, where certain players will have less of a chance to shine than others, or where the plot will seem to trudge along unevenly.

As time goes by, I think I've honed my GM skills to get better at reducing the length and impact of these "slow periods", but they still do happen. Its something you have to accept, that it won't be ALL ABOUT YOU all the fucking time. In a given game session, three of the four players might all be in different places, and have to take turns playing their scenes. There might be a lot of downtime, there might be a lot of time to wait for your plans to come to pass.

All of those are things you have to cope with, and be willing to put up with in order to get to those exquisite moments in the campaign where it is all about you for your own time.

RPGPundit

Maybe I'm just a lucky guy but if the players aren't having fun we've always been good at saying "Hey Paul we want to do something different." And that's just fine by me.

We've never been afraid to stop even a game that's sucking and say "Hey this isn't working tonight. Let's do something else."

We've saved a few games by just stopping them and blowing off some steam, and coming back to them. Omnidrome baby!

Quote from: Serious PaulMaybe I'm just a lucky guy but if the players aren't having fun we've always been good at saying "Hey Paul we want to do something different." And that's just fine by me.

We've never been afraid to stop even a game that's sucking and say "Hey this isn't working tonight. Let's do something else."

We've saved a few games by just stopping them and blowing off some steam, and coming back to them. Omnidrome baby!

Thankfully that's my groups attitude too. If we're not having fun then we try to rectify things through discussion. If it still doesn't work then we pack up and start something else. Everyone I know has run at least one campaign that didn't click in the way they anticipated, so it's seen more as an unfortunate hazard of a demanding group rather than a blemish on one's creativity.

If only one player is having a shit time and everyone else is enjoying themselves then he or she tends to duck out for a while, with no hard feelings. There's no sense in grinding a decent game to a halt because of a single dissenting voice.

As a GM I have run the odd campaign which my players thought was great, but I was not really into. When inspiration abandons me, I rely on craft .

Sometimes when your players are having fun, you just have to roll with it and finish the game. It's never really that bad when you are running a game for people who obviously enjoy your "work".

Regards,
David R

I've done what is described in the OP, "putting in time."  It was because:

Case 1: I liked most of the group and didn't want to look for a better one, and the GM wasn't receptive to opinions.

Case 2: I was out in the boondocks and had been unable to find a better group (and hadn't hit yet on the deep conviction that a sucky game just isn't worth the effort.)

Case 3: The GM promised this would be a short mini-series, as an excursion to change his mood.  It was wretched for us players, but we let him have a chance to run what he was feeling enthusiastic about.

Case 4: There was one problem player that really, really fucked up the game (he's been nicknamed "The Destroyer of Games" by other people.)  Unfortunately, he was the GM's buddy.  I hoped the GM would get rid of him, but in the end the game broke first.

Come to think of it, it never worked out in any of these examples.  Hmmm...  :raise:

I "did my time" in a rolemaster game as a player. I was talked into by friends. HATED the premise of the game - we were all supposed to be "EVIL!" characters on a mission.
We had just finished a GURPS:MECHA game that a friend of mine had run...then we switched GMs and did the EVIL! game.

 I don't enjoy playing "evil" characters, couldn't really get into it.

Also wound up hating Rolemaster game mechanics because of that game.


- Ed C.

I got stuck in a game of d20 Star Wars like this a few years back. I didn't feel there was anything I could do to improve it without offending people (and the people were quite nice). I didn't walk away completely, but my participation declined over a few months. There were about six other people in the game and I was playing a droid, so I didn't think it really mattered if I was there or not.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt all seems rather like "doing your time", except without the crime.

Has anyone else felt like this? If so, why didn't you try to improve things, or just walk away?

As a GM, I ran into this problem once when I was just starting out in my teens, then I began aggressively demanding feedback from players after every session or so. It allowed me to correct problems before they came up or while they were still small ones. I also came to the conclusion that its never a bad thing to abandon a campaign storyline that the players don't enjoy, even if it means abandoning a lot of work (the groundwork done can always be salvaged and used in another scenario).

As a player, I've stopped believing that even a sucky game is better than no game. I used to just "grin & bear it" until the abysmal night that of D&D Sensitivity Training. Never again, because if your not having fun - then why play in the game?

Quote from: Kyle AaronHas anyone else felt like this? If so, why didn't you try to improve things, or just walk away?

Because gaming with a group is about compromise.

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923As a GM, I ran into this problem once when I was just starting out in my teens, then I began aggressively demanding feedback from players after every session or so.

I had a GM who asked for a lot of feedback. If you provided it and it was negative, he'd sulk and/or explain why you were wrong. These days if I'm asked for feedback and my feedback would be negative, I usually just don't say anything.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiBecause gaming with a group is about compromise.

The idea of compromising in a game group is that everyone is basically happy. Everyone gets (say) 75% of what they want.

If someone is getting 0% and someone else is getting 100%, that's not compromise. That's just doing your time.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe idea of compromising in a game group is that everyone is basically happy. Everyone gets (say) 75% of what they want.

If someone is getting 0% and someone else is getting 100%, that's not compromise. That's just doing your time.

Compromise isn't about percentages, it's about everyone getting a little bit of what they want. Also, compromise isn't for ever or universally unilateral.

Seanchai