TheRPGSite

Hallo Forum,


yesterday I played with my group and it was the third time in a row that I thought that it was really, really boring. I had fun from time to time though when we were interacting with one another but that had nothing to do with the story - and the story barely made progress. Our group is set to find out why the cows in the region are all sick and it seems like somebody sickened them somehow (or I guess that's what the DM wants us to find out). We were railroaded to a boy who was traumatized by an attack of wolves. Those wolves killed his company and about 10 cows and he would not want to talk about it. The boy's mother however (she found him I guess) suggested that his wounds seemed to be caused by a dull item (like a club?), so maybe it was not an attack by wolves afterall. The boy on the other hand is traumatized and would not talk at all... This is where we ended the session and... there were not any highlights yesterday or the two evenings before. The DM was basically telling the story as it was lined out by him and to be honest I am really not interested in the outcome of the whole thing.
Another problem I had with the plot were slide inconsistencies like:
Originally we escaped from a city under siege by orcs to get help and travelled for about two week across the mountains to tell the people that the orcs are coming and we need reinforcements. People were all taken by surprise that we would bring news from a such a big orcish attack, but just a few days later people were talking about a big battle that had taken place as the besieged had moved out a fought a bloody battle they lost.
First of all: Why would an outnumbered garrison do that? This is just a stupid thing to do to begin with. Leaving your fortified position and attack the orcish aggressor is just a relly stupid idea - unless you got Gandalf as a backup plan (which we didn't). And second who spread this information? When our characters arrived everyone was upset and totally taken by surprise that the orcs attacked and just a week later news arrived from this big battle. Hallo? How did this information get there? It took a really long and dangerous journey over the snowy mountains to call for reinforcements. Did somebody else escape the besieged city and follow us just a week later? This makes no sense!
In character I would try to find out who spread this false propaganda, but as a player I know that the DM is serious about those events. And why is our group still  investigating this stupid cow-plague when the orcs seems to be gaining the upper hand in the siege? This threat is getting way to long already and I believe you get the idead: I am bored by the plot and this railroaded plot itself does not make any sense.

How would you tell the DM?
The thing is that the DM also prepared a lot of text that he would read out and he also served us chilli and beer! So you cannot blame him that he went into the session unprepared. Quite the opposite! Though I think he does not notice that at least I found the plot really boring.

Thanks for your help in advance!

Find another game.

Determine what you want from a game, then ask questions when you join the new group.

Joining or creating a gaming group is like hiring/firing for a job. Both the GM and Player should be asking questions to size up each other.

What is the MPAA rating of this game? What subjects are you comfortable with? uncomfortable with?

Do you like to run/play in commercial adventures? Sandbox? Something in-between?

What is your mix of combat and non-combat? Why do you GM/Play? What is your favorite thing about gaming?

You are not going to successfully tell the GM "your plot bores me" without hurting someone's feelings. When you meet a GM that likes to read reams of text, you are likely dealing with a wanna-be author who just wants a rapt audience to tell their tales to. I don't like this style of gaming so I can empathize with your frustration. It's just better to wander out and find a new group OR start one yourself. You don't have to a GM to start a group, you can hit Meetup.com or your favorite game's forum and start recruiting noting that you want a GM. Then ask more questions this time so you can a) find gamers with similar wants and b) find a GM who will provide those wants to the group.

Good luck! Happy Gaming!

I'd agree with this advice; I've had guest GMs in the game room who do exactly this kind of 'read the book to the players'. The last one I had, his best friend actually fell asleep during the game session. As has been said, you are not going to be able to tell the GM that you are bored; this is his magnum opus, and he probably will not understand that not everyone else shares his views. Best to find something else, sorry to have to say.

I should add that our group exists since 2,5 years and I don't want to just form a new group. I like the guys playing with me. It's just that this story bores me out and I would aprreciate it if somebody told me how he dealt with similar situations in the past.
How do you formulate critique?

Quote from: MES;926295How do you formulate critique?

Start by telling something you like. Say that you want more of that. Then say what you don't like or what you would change. Don't say "XY sucks!". Say "I didn't enjoy XY." Then tell something else you liked.

Maybe it's just me, but how am I supposed to get excited about investigating the deaths of some cows?

But before you go and try to tell the GM he sucks in the nicest way possible, I think there's something that's worth a shot: Balk at the hook.

See, GMs generally want to run a game that's fun and exciting for everyone. But players have been so programmed to always accept the GM's hooks that the GM gets the same in-play feedback no matter what shit he slings against the wall--players always seem to take an interest in it. And I know players do it to be polite, but understand that by doing so you are a) willingly signing up for something you won't like, and b) robbing the GM of his compass. When you look at it that way, you have to blame yourself before you blame the GM.

In the hero's journey, the hero often initially refuses the call to adventure. Why should this be taboo in the RPG? In fact, I believe players should get in the habit of rejecting the first offer whenever the GM presents a plot hook. Unless the hook nails your character's motivations perfectly. And even then, double-check to see if your character has some flaw that would make him hesitate answering the call. GMs should likewise always be prepared for players to reject the initial plot hook. And, again, maybe it's just me, but my feeling is GMs are far more prepared for such a rejection of the initial hook than most players think. And if he isn't, then he needs to get in the habit of being prepared.

Lunancer, I think that is terrible advice.  I get what you are saying.  And I agree with not doing every dumb fool quest the DM throws out but don't Balk at the Hook.  

That can work in a story because the Author controls both the character and the plot. So the author can just drag the character into the adventure.  In a game there is more than one player, not everyone can be the 'dark and brooding loner' and in my experience the player who plays that guy is struggling for control, of the group, his life, whatever. Don't be that guy.  

Instead of balking at the hook, take it and run with it.  Oh your cows all died, your son is traumatized?  Well you hardly have a farm at all, why don't we by you out.  And you too can work in our keep.  (If you don't have a keep and don't want to buy up all the farm land in the duchy find something else.) maybe offer to guide the Orcs through the impenetrable mountains to the city so they don't get list on the way to sack it.  Then it's up to you whether you steer them true or get them lost.

You say you have been playing for two years? Has he always been dull?  If he isn't interested in your input then you might be stuck.

Quote from: MES;926295I should add that our group exists since 2,5 years and I don't want to just form a new group. I like the guys playing with me. It's just that this story bores me out and I would aprreciate it if somebody told me how he dealt with similar situations in the past.
How do you formulate critique?

Think about what you liked about the session and what you didnt. What was different about this session that was not in others?

Talk to the DM about these things. What you liked, what you didnt. Also see what the other players thought? Were they bored or really into it or neutral?

Wow... that's a lot of feedback in such a short period of time. I read every post and I think all of you gave good advice. I mean it. Even if it was just a few words every post had something. So for now I think I'll take a ride on my bike for the next two hours and think the whole thing through and when I have thought about it enough I will email my friend (the GM) and tell him what I think about the campaign.

I also want to add, that it has not always been this dull. The beginning of the campaign was very good, when we defended "our" city and "our" families against the orkish hordes. That was pretty cool, but now the whole thing got off track. The second part of the campaign started out as getting reinforcements, but... now we find ourselves investigating this dead cow case, which in the end might have something to do with the orcish invasion, but as lumancer mentioned this is not the most thrilling thing to play. The GM inplay and outplay hinted that this dead cow case points towards some dark druidish magical force which also drives the orcs. So there...

I want to point out that, yes I actually did tell the GM, what I liked most about his campaign, which was organising the defense, working out a plan to defend the city and doing reconnaissance patrols. No need for a big plot. Sometimes less is more, you know? I also thought that my suggestions got through to him - which they obviously didn't. I did not talk to the other players about the last sessions yet, so I do not really know what they are thinking and I am not really sure if I should.

I also want to state that we take turns in GM-ing and that I am gm-ing in another group as well and just I enjoy playing with both groups and dropping out of either one is not an option.

Hit him in the head with a bucket.

No wait, that's terrible advice.

Tell him. Instead of saying it's boring, tell him it's slow and railroady and too wordy. GMs can't improve unless they get good feedback.
It's good that you rotate GMs. I think that can encourage friendly competition (as long as it stays friendly) and challenges GMs who might otherwise fall into a rut. When I play, I also pay attention for any techniques or ideas from the GM that I can steal. :D

Hopefully it's just a bad patch that you'll get through. It sounds like the GM has done well before this.

Lunamancer's right, it takes two to Tango. Gonna play Devil's (or GM's) Advocate here...

1. It's not the GM's style, that's been fine for over two years now.
2. When the story was about, as you put it, defending "your" village and "your" family from the orcish hordes, that was fine.
3. When the story shifts to the broader conflict, you find out this isn't a "normal" orc invasion and there actually might be some Evil Druid behind it, some foul being who is driving the orcs to keep attacking your kingdom, your response is Booooring?
4. Defending your family from an orc sword...cool. Defending your family from a evil druid who has an orc nation and magical plagues...yawn.

Really dude?

You can balk at the hook without being the brooding loner, certainly, and that might be better in the long run...but...just maybe...you might want to pretend you have more attention span than a meth-whore, put some trust in the GM you've liked for two and a half years, and most importantly...use your brain, find your courage, learn where this druid is, and go cut the head off the fucking snake before that bastard destroys all you hold dear.

You see, the other way to respond to railroady hooks isn't to balk, but to Engage.  Jump in with both feet, find something about the hook that gives you motivation, and take it.  Make the hook yours, not the GM's.  The GM might be getting lazy, he might be drifting into StoryTeller mode, snap him out of it, by Seizing the Initiative.

Like balking, seizing the initiative of the plot is important GM feedback.  It tells the GM "We are not sitting here while you spoonfeed us your Magnum Opus". Be proactive, not reactive.  Aggressive, not Passive-Aggressive.

Or, if you actually don't care about the druid, go back to building defenses, dig a moat, it will be a good place to throw the plague-ridden bodies of your family and friends. :D

Tell the GM that you'd rather play instead of listening to him/her read you a few pages of prose at the start of every game. Tell him/her to send the players the prose BEFORE the session to set things up.

Since there are ALWAYS players who NEVER do anything between sessions, recommend that the GM get one of the players to summarize the prose before the session starts, and offer an XP reward for doing so.

That's what my GM has been doing for the current campaign and we've praised her for it.

(and since I'm the only one who actually reads and engages with the prose, and writes up a game journal, I'm a whole level higher than the rest of the party because of the bonus XP, bwah hah hah)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;926311Hit him in the head with a bucket.

No wait, that's terrible advice.

I think your first instinct was correct.

Both the referee and the player who posted about the campaign could do with a couple of hard shots with the bucket, one with iron-bound oak slats affixed to a sturdy chain.

Ahh yes, here it comes.  The rpg site specially, blaming the player who comes looking for advice for sucking.  

That said I agree with Krugars last three paragraphs.

If the group has been together this long, then I assume the GM has run some adventures you have enjoyed? Maybe allude to those, play to the GM's strengths, or those sessions you thought they were at their best. Maybe initiate in character conversations about why the party is doing whatever it is doing ("Should we really be here, dealing with this, when the orcs are massing?"). Hell, go against the age old wisdom, and split the damned party, make the GM deal with the several things you guys have in mind.

Agree with Ratman's assessment, though. You find this story branch boring. Ride it out maybe and see what happens? All of us have had ideas that fall flat. However...reading long tracts...have to say I did that, decades ago...once. It was pretty obvious folks just wanted to get along with the adventure, so I never did that again.

Maybe your GM will figure that out?

(Curious, though, what system are you guys running?)

I'm with Lunamancer.
You don't have to be a dick about it... you shouldn't be a dick about it... but Players have their hand to play in guiding the game just as much as the GM.
If the arrival of news of the orc's victory in the siege doesn't make sense then have the PCs reflect that... they either don't believe it or suspect some further element. Take whatever theory they come up with and run with it. Decide there is something afoot, secret allies of the orcs spreading propaganda or whatever. Just because it's not 'true' in-game doesn't mean it can't be a vector of fun. Our Earthdawn group had an epic bit of adventure while looking for a magical bird that turned out to just be a bit of symbolism in a poem.
Sometimes I've gotten friction from other Players who just want the GM to lead them by the nose, because I refuse to jump at every hook and will argue when the information the GM provides doesn't make sense. Mind you, I'm not arguing with the GM, I'm arguing with the other PCs that the informatiion, "must be a trap because of such and such."
You can have a conversation with the GM within the game... taking and rejecting hooks and reacting to undercooked plots by dissecting them, working out your own 'truth' and running with that. Seems to me that any decent GM oughtta be good with that.

Quote from: MES;926283How would you tell the DM?
The thing is that the DM also prepared a lot of text that he would read out and he also served us chilli and beer! So you cannot blame him that he went into the session unprepared. Quite the opposite! Though I think he does not notice that at least I found the plot really boring.

Yes, I would tell him. As a GM, I'd hate it if my players were bored with me games and would change the way I was doing things to improve things. If you don;t tell him then he won't know.

I can see how some people might think the scenario was boring, but I have seen a number of similar scenarios which worked really well. It's not my style, but farm-based campaigns can work.

I would do it the direct way.

"Guys, I'm really bored.  Are you bored too, or is it just me?"  And if it's just me, I then decide if I want to keep going or say "No thanks" and retire from that game.

Not gaming is better than bad gaming, and I find being bored is bad gaming.  But if everybody else is having fun I'm not going to shit on their fun.

Quote from: CRKrueger;9263161. It's not the GM's style, that's been fine for over two years now.

Actually, he said that the group had existed for 2.5 years not that this person had been the GM for 2.5 years.  Lots of groups periodically switch GMs.  This might be the person's first time in the GM chair.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;926321I think your first instinct was correct.

Both the referee and the player who posted about the campaign could do with a couple of hard shots with the bucket, one with iron-bound oak slats affixed to a sturdy chain.

I get an image of an old Jet Li carrying that around and swinging that thing like a rope dart and braining someone with it when they're being an idiot.  I can also see "the bucket" becoming a forum meme.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926316Lunamancer's right, it takes two to Tango. Gonna play Devil's (or GM's) Advocate here...

1. It's not the GM's style, that's been fine for over two years now.
2. When the story was about, as you put it, defending "your" village and "your" family from the orcish hordes, that was fine.
3. When the story shifts to the broader conflict, you find out this isn't a "normal" orc invasion and there actually might be some Evil Druid behind it, some foul being who is driving the orcs to keep attacking your kingdom, your response is Booooring?
4. Defending your family from an orc sword...cool. Defending your family from a evil druid who has an orc nation and magical plagues...yawn.

Really dude?

You can balk at the hook without being the brooding loner, certainly, and that might be better in the long run...but...just maybe...you might want to pretend you have more attention span than a meth-whore, put some trust in the GM you've liked for two and a half years, and most importantly...use your brain, find your courage, learn where this druid is, and go cut the head off the fucking snake before that bastard destroys all you hold dear.

You see, the other way to respond to railroady hooks isn't to balk, but to Engage.  Jump in with both feet, find something about the hook that gives you motivation, and take it.  Make the hook yours, not the GM's.  The GM might be getting lazy, he might be drifting into StoryTeller mode, snap him out of it, by Seizing the Initiative.

Like balking, seizing the initiative of the plot is important GM feedback.  It tells the GM "We are not sitting here while you spoonfeed us your Magnum Opus". Be proactive, not reactive.  Aggressive, not Passive-Aggressive.

Or, if you actually don't care about the druid, go back to building defenses, dig a moat, it will be a good place to throw the plague-ridden bodies of your family and friends. :D

I won't discuss on this niveau. Thanks for nothing.

Update:
I just talked to the GM for 45minutes. I first started writing an email, which I thought got too long and then I just picked up the phone and called him.

I did not exactly tell him that I found his adventure boring, but I told him, which elements I did not like about it and I decided to focus on mainly three issues, which was story progress, raildoadiness and consistency of the setting. Otherwise I thought the whole thing would have come off too harsh.

I re-read a german guideline to write good adventures ("Das Abenteuerkochbuch", you find it here:  http://www.selemer-tagebuecher.de/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/Abenteuerkochbuch.pdf (http://www.selemer-tagebuecher.de/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/Abenteuerkochbuch.pdf)) to make my critique constructive.

Basically I had a problem playing "realistically" in his world and I told him, that I wished for more "successes" when playing. I gave him an example of last session, when we basically only found this boy, who was too traumatised to tell anything and his mother who hinted that the boy had bruises, which could not possibly have been caused by a wolf attack. I told him that the NPC he presented did not make the story progress as much as I wished and that he basically sends us from spot to spot, to gather more information. To me it did not feel like we were on to something and that I did not have the feeling that it was in our hands to solve the problems he presented, but in his hands (or better his script). To me it felt like a paperchase and every NPC just knew enough to send us to the next spot in the script.

 I had already written most of the stuff down, I told him, and I tried to make it sound constructive and I tried to illustrate it with examples, still I did not have the feeling that he got, what I tried to point out.

His reponse felt quite unsatisfying. Basically what he stated was that if we wanted to make progress, that we had to work for it and that from his perspective he already had given us hints, through NPCs (like the boy's mother and the "dull-item-information") which we did not work or ask for. His point was that he already helped us out quite a bit and that he wanted to make the world really "realistic" as in "farm-based-style" and to be honest, the way he presents the whole thing is not really my cup of tea.

It felt like we discussed the issue for 30 minutes without finding a solution really and in the end we agreed on bringing the thing on the table next time our group meets. The main problem to me is, that I find his story weak and I don't see a fast way to finish it unless the players agree with me.

We'll meet again November 1st and I will sind you an update, if you want.

Yeah please do, I'm actually curious how this turns out.

But, yeah, if you end up still bored and unsatisfied, just step out. I've done so in the past and unruffled the GM's feathers by explaining it as "this campaign genre just isn't my style, good luck!".

It sucks, but eh, I wouldn't be surprised if your friends, even if they agree with you, decide to stick with it. That's what happened to me and it was infuriating to hear my friends all complain for MONTHS about the campaign about all the things that made me quit in the first place.

I would just stick it out.  For me bad gaming is better than no gaming.   If bad means boring and 'no' means none at all.

How long does he's story run?  

Is this his first time DMing?  How long has he been DMing?
How old is the group? Teens? 20s? 30s?  I am guessing early 20s.  

If you discuss it again ask if he is happy with the progress you are making.  

If he's not then maybe he needs to be more explicit in his clues.  DMs often think they are being way more obvious than they are.  Its cause they live inside their head and you don't.

If he is happy with how it's going, re-evaluate the session.  Did other people have fun?  It might be you.  Think about it.  If it wasn't you, then you options are drop, or tough  it out and wait for him to change.

(on iPhone, sorry for autocorrect errors)

Definitely this is a delicate situation so my first advice is get a sense of what kind of feedback this GM can handle. Some people deal with this stuff fine, some take it wicked personally. I've seen constructive feedback make GMs better but also seen it make them second guess everything to the point you wish no one had raised the issue.

First I would establish what the other players think. If they are having a blast and you are the only bored player, then obviously it is a style or taste issue and you are bettter off finding another group. If most of the players are bored the GM is probably in need of feedback. In this case some helpful criticism could save the canpaign. But I would say know which situation you are in first.

For feedback be sure to point out what does work in campaign (so he doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water). Put yourself in his shoes and think what you'd be receptive to if the tables were turned.

I've found the following to be helpful:

Be direct. Don't be vague or drop hints. Just say what you want. Don't make it about him being a bad GM. Make it about what you want in play and what he could change.

What are his strengths? Can these be built on to make a more exciting game?

Recognize what he can't improve. There are some things he might just not be able to pull off and pushing him to do that stuff could be like pulling teeth.

Identify what you would specifically like to see. "Be less boring" is vague and he is going to flounder trying to figure out what that actually means in terms of prep. Pinpoint for him where things go wrong and how he can improve them. Tell him what you want him to do. Be concrete. if you want more dungeons, ask him to make more dungeons. If you want more choices inside those dungeons, or fewer kobolds in them,  say so. If you want more combat or more events, tell him. Give examples.

MES, you have gotten a lot of good advice in this thread and have acted upon some of it. There is an option that you have not tried yet though.

Let your DM take a break and you DM a few sessions. This way, your DM can fall back and regroup plus it gives you the opportunity to see the game from his side of the table, which may help facilitate communication.

I don't think a lot of people have properly understood, balking at the hook does not mean balking at the adventure.

Like when Luke "The Brooding Loner" Skywalker was asked by Obi-Wan to go to Alderaan, he refused. He had to get home. He had work to do.

That doesn't mean the GM had to shit-can the whole Empire plot. He just has to make it more real for Luke and Luke's player.

Luke's player, by playing true to his character and refusing, gave the GM everything he needs to know to turn Luke's "No" into a "Yes" and make the adventure more compelling for Luke's player. His character hates the Empire. But he can't just walk away from the people who depend upon him, a common concern of brooding loners everywhere.

Empire kills his family. Problem solved. We're back on track.

Sounds awful. If I didn't want to leave, I'd try roleplaying in character. If my character is dumb enough, I could just have him not care, but assuming my character has some of the intelligence you show, I would follow my/your instinct about "Wait? What? That report makes no sense! And who did bring it, seriously? Can we talk to them? Why would the garrison charge out after sending us for help?" And then, why again do we care about the cows? There's a plague? This sounds like an awful part of the world - maybe we should travel somewhere else. If we don't care and aren't getting anywhere, maybe we should think about what we do care about and find more interesting, and go after that. How about investigating what actually did happen at the city where you escaped the siege?

Or, more subtle versions. It is possible to lead GMs by example as players into ways of thinking that make more sense and are more interesting to the players, by not going along with the illogic and uninterestingness stupid forced plot hooks. Require the GM to improve by roleplaying well and in logical and interesting ways.

Quote from: jeff37923;926461MES, you have gotten a lot of good advice in this thread and have acted upon some of it. There is an option that you have not tried yet though.

Let your DM take a break and you DM a few sessions. This way, your DM can fall back and regroup plus it gives you the opportunity to see the game from his side of the table, which may help facilitate communication.

Wow... this is a really good advice. I mean it! I will consider this, thanks!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;926370Not gaming is better than bad gaming, and I find being bored is bad gaming.  But if everybody else is having fun I'm not going to shit on their fun.

I'm really not fond of that saying. "Bad" gaming can mean a lot of different things, and I'd hate to be in a group where the players would leave the moment things became boring, without giving the GM a chance to get back on track.

If the GM is consistently boring, and not open to criticism and advice, then I'd think about leaving.

Quote from: Lunamancer;926469I don't think a lot of people have properly understood, balking at the hook does not mean balking at the adventure.

Like when Luke "The Brooding Loner" Skywalker was asked by Obi-Wan to go to Alderaan, he refused. He had to get home. He had work to do.

That doesn't mean the GM had to shit-can the whole Empire plot. He just has to make it more real for Luke and Luke's player.

Luke's player, by playing true to his character and refusing, gave the GM everything he needs to know to turn Luke's "No" into a "Yes" and make the adventure more compelling for Luke's player. His character hates the Empire. But he can't just walk away from the people who depend upon him, a common concern of brooding loners everywhere.

Empire kills his family. Problem solved. We're back on track.

I think assumed motivation is what creates a lot of boredom in players. The example with Luke is a good one, but it's worth keeping in mind that not every motivation is going to work for every PC.

I've taken to making up a random encounter matrix for every campaign I write up, so that if the character ever turn down an adventure hook, I can at least run some random encounters for that evening and regroup mentally. I'd rather have motivated PCs doing random things than unmotivated PCs following "the plan".

Quote from: Ratman_tf;926479I think assumed motivation is what creates a lot of boredom in players. The example with Luke is a good one, but it's worth keeping in mind that not every motivation is going to work for every PC.

I'm confused. How can you say the example is a good one when you obviously didn't even read it? There is no "assumed" motivation. That's the whole point of balking at the hook. It helps reveal motivational forces so the GM can properly adjust. The technique is specifically designed to take assumption out of the equation, and that's exactly what the example illustrates.

I ll give another update when I find time! ;)

Quote from: Lunamancer;926484I'm confused. How can you say the example is a good one when you obviously didn't even read it? There is no "assumed" motivation. That's the whole point of balking at the hook. It helps reveal motivational forces so the GM can properly adjust. The technique is specifically designed to take assumption out of the equation, and that's exactly what the example illustrates.

In that example, the motivation is "The Empire is bad". In a hypothetical RPG session a GM might assume that that's enough for the PCs to go along.
But for the Luke player character, it wasn't enough. So, as you say, it became personal when the Empire killed his Aunt and Uncle.

Without that personal motivation, the Luke PC might have gone along with the adventure, because if he didn't there wouldn't be a game session, but he might wind up the player poking around on his cell phone during the game.

And it's important to keep in mind that different things motivate different characters. The Han Solo PC didn't go along for the rebellion, he went for the reward. (At first)

Quote from: MES;926445Update:
I just talked to the GM for 45minutes. I first started writing an email, which I thought got too long and then I just picked up the phone and called him.

I did not exactly tell him that I found his adventure boring, but I told him, which elements I did not like about it and I decided to focus on mainly three issues, which was story progress, raildoadiness and consistency of the setting. Otherwise I thought the whole thing would have come off too harsh.

I re-read a german guideline to write good adventures ("Das Abenteuerkochbuch", you find it here:  http://www.selemer-tagebuecher.de/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/Abenteuerkochbuch.pdf (http://www.selemer-tagebuecher.de/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/Abenteuerkochbuch.pdf)) to make my critique constructive.

Basically I had a problem playing "realistically" in his world and I told him, that I wished for more "successes" when playing. I gave him an example of last session, when we basically only found this boy, who was too traumatised to tell anything and his mother who hinted that the boy had bruises, which could not possibly have been caused by a wolf attack. I told him that the NPC he presented did not make the story progress as much as I wished and that he basically sends us from spot to spot, to gather more information. To me it did not feel like we were on to something and that I did not have the feeling that it was in our hands to solve the problems he presented, but in his hands (or better his script). To me it felt like a paperchase and every NPC just knew enough to send us to the next spot in the script.

 I had already written most of the stuff down, I told him, and I tried to make it sound constructive and I tried to illustrate it with examples, still I did not have the feeling that he got, what I tried to point out.

His reponse felt quite unsatisfying. Basically what he stated was that if we wanted to make progress, that we had to work for it and that from his perspective he already had given us hints, through NPCs (like the boy's mother and the "dull-item-information") which we did not work or ask for. His point was that he already helped us out quite a bit and that he wanted to make the world really "realistic" as in "farm-based-style" and to be honest, the way he presents the whole thing is not really my cup of tea.

It felt like we discussed the issue for 30 minutes without finding a solution really and in the end we agreed on bringing the thing on the table next time our group meets. The main problem to me is, that I find his story weak and I don't see a fast way to finish it unless the players agree with me.

We'll meet again November 1st and I will sind you an update, if you want.

Maybe I missed it, but what does everyone else think of the current adventure?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;926492In that example, the motivation is "The Empire is bad".

Eh. I don't know that's ever an assumption. I think GMs set up an open thinking "There's a lot of interesting here for everyone to find something." Luke might have been motivated by his hate for the Empire, or desire to rescue the princess, or to appease old Ben and learn more about his father. It just turns out that his family obligations was a higher priority for him. Now that the GM knows that, he has the Empire kill his family, and now the player is hooked. It's specific to his character.

QuoteWithout that personal motivation, the Luke PC might have gone along with the adventure, because if he didn't there wouldn't be a game session, but he might wind up the player poking around on his cell phone during the game.

True. This is a danger of players being programmed to just go along with the GMs hook. This is why it's actually a good idea to make rejecting the first hook standard practice.

Quote from: MES;926438I won't discuss on this niveau. Thanks for nothing.

Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.

Quote from: cranebump;926499Maybe I missed it, but what does everyone else think of the current adventure?

Sounds a little like hamfisted storytelling, but it's hard to be sure, I'm 100% convinced we're getting a extremely skewed report.  But, again, considering the source, it does seem like the GM not only has his set plot, but might be doing a little pixel-bitching about the clues, but then again, you'd have to look for a clue or have the capability to recognize one when it bit you on the ass, or be interested in anything other than direct tactical challenge, something the OP kind of seems not too keen on.  Then again, the GM could be the posterchild for why, incorrectly, people thought Gumshoe was a good idea.

So I'm calling this one 50/50, maybe 40/60 GM/player fault.  It seems like the GM probably is messing things up, but the players or at least the OP, is definitely being more than a little bit of a whiny bitch about it too.  So yeah, they both get The Bucket.

The cure for this I think is not to get into an argument about the adventure, that's just going to quickly devolve into "GM said/player thought" "no we didn't/yes you did" kind of tit for tat that will make things worse.

Instead when they get together next, they need to have the "Expectations" talk.  What kind of campaign you like, don't like, how immersive, how cinematic, how gritty, etc.

Gather your fellow players, everybody chips in $50, and you hire a hooker.
If you're in Canada, hire two. (It's a recession)
Then your DM gets laid and in the afterglow, the hooker(s) tells him his game is boring, but his players wanted to be cool about letting him know.

Quote from: Spinachcat;926564Gather your fellow players, everybody chips in $50, and you hire a hooker.
If you're in Canada, hire two. (It's a recession)
Then your DM gets laid and in the afterglow, the hooker(s) tells him his game is boring, but his players wanted to be cool about letting him know.

If that was the result, I'd want my own games to be boring!

Quote from: Spinachcat;926564Gather your fellow players, everybody chips in $50, and you hire a hooker.
If you're in Canada, hire two. (It's a recession)
Then your DM gets laid and in the afterglow, the hooker(s) tells him his game is boring, but his players wanted to be cool about letting him know.

Everything goes better with blowjobs!

Quote from: cranebump;926499Maybe I missed it, but what does everyone else think of the current adventure?

Well, we only have one side of it, and possibly not a fair report.  But I will say I strongly dislike "mission based" fantasy; I much prefer "here are multiple adventure hooks that you can pursue or not."  And "hunting for clues" almost ALWAYS sucks in any game of any kind.

So it sounds like it's not the kind of game I'd like in the first place.

But as I said above, my solution is simply "Sorry guys, I'm just not having fun.  I'll sit this one out."

Quote from: CRKrueger;926545Then again, the GM could be the posterchild for why, incorrectly, people thought Gumshoe was a good idea.

Say more about this, I know nothing about "Gumshoe".

Quote from: CRKrueger;926545Instead when they get together next, they need to have the "Expectations" talk.  What kind of campaign you like, don't like, how immersive, how cinematic, how gritty, etc.

Always my first suggestion.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;926656Say more about this, I know nothing about "Gumshoe".

Gumshoe is a game that essentially trys to fix, through mechanics, Bad Call of Cthulhu GMing (or bad investigating GMing in general).  The whole point of the system is to have an OOC metapoint pool that you can spend to automatically get clues.  Instead of using a variety of skills to search a room looking for a clue (like perception, research, lockpicking, safecracking, etc.) by making skill checks, you instead can spend a point if you have the right investigative ability to get a Primary Clue and may spend more to get secondary, non-essential clues.  You don't roleplay the *finding* of the clues, you go OOC for that, instead you roleplay interpreting the meaning of the clues.

Apparently designing things as a GM so that there is no one single way to find out a piece of information, and that one piece of information wasn't the only possible way to stop something, was a foreign idea. :D

But then again Laws has always been in the "Playing in a Book or Movie" mode of gaming.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926661Gumshoe is a game that essentially trys to fix, through mechanics, Bad Call of Cthulhu GMing (or bad investigating GMing in general).  The whole point of the system is to have an OOC metapoint pool that you can spend to automatically get clues.  Instead of using a variety of skills to search a room looking for a clue (like perception, research, lockpicking, safecracking, etc.) by making skill checks, you instead can spend a point if you have the right investigative ability to get a Primary Clue and may spend more to get secondary, non-essential clues.

Apparently designing things as a GM so that there is no one single way to find out a piece of information, and that one piece of information wasn't the only possible way to stop something, was a foreign idea. :D

Gotcha.  I see how it's a reaction to shitty GMing.  Wearying, sometimes, but an understandable reaction to Sturgeon's Second Law.  ("90% of everything is crap.")

If I found that a campaign bored me, then I would just stop showing up. It would have to be really boring though. Now on the other hand I did once play in a 3.5e campaign that was balanced for combat monsters. I played a rogue. After the second session of laying around unconscious I packed my bags and informed the DM that I was unsuited for his game and went home, drank beer and played video games.

Of course Gumshoe still does nothing to address the problem of players who are dumber than the PCs and can't manage to piece the clues together and solve the riddle, or maybe it has another mechanic for this. I generally suck at writing investigation adventures so I tend not to run them. Thus I haven't looked at Gumshoe.

In general I find games that require X to happen but leave an actual possibility of failure for X to happen to suck. If X must happen then have X happen and make the adventure be about how and why X happens, or how the PCs deal with X happening.

As for reading big blocks of prepared text to players there is a whole school of module design that does it like this. Even if your GM is a trained voice actor it gets old.

It sounds to me like there is something of a bait and switch taking place here. The OP was expecting a game about the war with the Orcs, instead he is getting the mystery of the cattle mutilations. Best I have to offer is to have a conversation about what the GM wants out of the game and what the players want out of the game. I have one set of players who just want to play murderhoboes, so when I run for them that is what I run. I have a nother group who really like imersive role playing, so I run that style.  I also at the end of every session ask my players "is there anything you especially want to see next session?"  They don't always get what they want, but it helps me to know if I am in the right ballpark.

Quote from: DavetheLost;926673I also at the end of every session ask my players "is there anything you especially want to see next session?"  They don't always get what they want, but it helps me to know if I am in the right ballpark.

That's weaksauce Dave. If you can't read their minds with GM telepathy, what's the point? Your lame ass solution of talking to your players and engaging them in conversation to enhance your game sessions is only going to end badly. Eventually. For sure.

If you were a real GM, you would just wonder about it silently, or post about it on a forum where your players don't visit.

:mad:

You are right. I have strayed from the One True Way. I will go burn some dice and character sheets in atonement.

Quote from: DavetheLost;926673The OP was expecting a game about the war with the Orcs, and instead he is getting the mystery of the cattle mutilations.

Kind of seems more like he was expecting a campaign about fighting the orcs, and only fighting the orcs and instead is getting the mystery of what is behind the orcs, ie. the real threat, but again, hard to tell.

For example, the OP asks why the defending soldiers would sortie out to face the orcs instead of fighting defensively?  Instead of wondering about the possible reasons (like maybe they discovered their food stores were poisoned/plagued and so fighting even at a disadvantage is preferable to dying of poison/plague/starvation), he instead calls bullshit on the GM.  Instead of wondering about the coincidence of poisoned food sources behind the front lines happening at the same time as an orc invasion with rumors of an evil druid, the OP just assumes investigating cattle is boring and calls bullshit on the GM.  Seeing a pattern here...?

That's why even if the GM is running in Railroad Mode, there's still two people who get The Bucket.

Oh, yeah, I see the pattern. Only cure is the bucket. That or a discusion of expectations. What do the players (plural is important) want and expect out of the game? What does the GM want and expect out of the game?

It may well be the case that the other players are happy to go down the side path of investigating the situation with the cattle to see where it leads. Likewise they might find the GM's text blocks to be enthralling prose. It may also be the case that the other players all hate the new direction the campaign seems to be taking so much that no one shows up for the next session.

I understand the frustration of being in a game where you just don't like the GM's style, or the direction of the adventure, or what have you. It sucks. I've been there myself. You can have the expectations chat, and probably should, but be prepared to make a choice between leaving the game or having it continue the same way. If the GM can't or won't change, and you can't or won't stand to continue, it might be best to sit out until this arc wraps. At least that way people remain friends at the end.

It does sound like there are in character threads that you might be more interested in following up on than the cattle sickness. Who brought the news of the battle? Why did the garrison sortie against the orcs? Even who or what attacked the boy? Or head back to the besieged city and fight orcs. Presumaby you have delivered your request for reinforcements. If you haven't make that happen. Or just suck it up and investigate the damned cattle plague.

Quote from: DavetheLost;926693Oh, yeah, I see the pattern. Only cure is the bucket. That or a discusion of expectations. What do the players (plural is important) want and expect out of the game? What does the GM want and expect out of the game?

Well, I did say they should have the Expectation Talk...they just need The Bucket first. :D

Quote from: DavetheLost;926693It may well be the case that the other players are happy to go down the side path of investigating the situation with the cattle to see where it leads. Likewise they might find the GM's text blocks to be enthralling prose. It may also be the case that the other players all hate the new direction the campaign seems to be taking so much that no one shows up for the next session.

True, no way to tell yet.

Quote from: DavetheLost;926693I understand the frustration of being in a game where you just don't like the GM's style, or the direction of the adventure, or what have you. It sucks. I've been there myself.

Yeah, I think we all have.  I'm a firm believer in No Gaming is better than Bad Gaming, but to me Bad Gaming isn't "anything that isn't 100% perfectly wired in to what I want to do".  There are other players.  Some are always going to be more on board with an agreed action than others, you're never going to have 100% agreement and 100% engagement with any premise, whether Player-chosen or GM-chosen.  If you find the other players are always moving the campaign in ways you don't especially get excited by, or the GM just runs the one style of adventure and that just isn't you, then obviously you have to speak up and/or sit that one out.  I'm not seeing this terrible pattern of GM railroad abuse, I'm seeing an OP who wanted to fight orcs bitching because he got sent away from the front and claiming everything the GM does is shit.  Yes, maybe it is, but experience tells me maybe, just maybe, there's another side to the story here and it's not just a living embodiment of GM stereotypes.

Quote from: Headless;926325Ahh yes, here it comes.  The rpg site specially, blaming the player who comes looking for advice for sucking.

(https://www.legendproduct.com/images/sets/s1341/whiteknight.jpg)

Quote from: CRKrueger;926685For example, the OP asks why the defending soldiers would sortie out to face the orcs instead of fighting defensively?  Instead of wondering about the possible reasons (like maybe they discovered their food stores were poisoned/plagued and so fighting even at a disadvantage is preferable to dying of poison/plague/starvation), he instead calls bullshit on the GM.  Instead of wondering about the coincidence of poisoned food sources behind the front lines happening at the same time as an orc invasion with rumors of an evil druid, the OP just assumes investigating cattle is boring and calls bullshit on the GM.  Seeing a pattern here...?

That's why even if the GM is running in Railroad Mode, there's still two people who get The Bucket.

Exactly.

Players whining about how something DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! are often (1) stupid, (2) lazy, (3) stupid and lazy, or (4) missing the fact that something which doesn't make 'sense' is a GIANT FUCKING CLUE that there's more to what's going on than they realize.

It may be that the referee doesn't know the first rule of running an investigation scenario . . . something I don't think that asshat Robin Laws knows either . . . is that the investigation should be the most interesting part of a mystery. It also may be that the player is a fuckwit. Most likely it's some combination of the two. Bucket liberally - it's the only way to be sure.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;926663Gotcha.  I see how it's a reaction to shitty GMing.  Wearying, sometimes, but an understandable reaction to Sturgeon's Second Law.  ("90% of everything is crap.")

Essentially another case of "We suck as players, but its really the GMs fault! So we'll FIX the game so we, er... the GM! wont suck anymore."

Laws version

QuoteWhy This Game Exists
Investigative scenarios have been done wrong since the early days of roleplaying games.
As a consequence, they’re hard to run and prone to grind to a halt. GUMSHOE is here to fix all that.
What’s wrong about the traditional way of doing investigative games? They’re based on a faulty premise. Story-based roleplaying, of which investigative games were an early if not the earliest example, evolved from dungeon-bashing campaigns. They treat clues the same way that dungeon games treat treasure. You have to search for the clue that takes you on to the next scene. If you roll well, you get the clue. If not, you don’t—and the story grinds to a halt.
However, treasure gathering isn’t the main event in a dungeon game. There, the central activity is killing the monsters and enemies who live in the dungeon. The treasurefinding phase comes afterwards, as a mere reward. If you don’t get all the treasure in a room, you lose out a bit, but the story keeps going, as you tromp down the hallway to the next monster-filled chamber.
Imagine a dungeon game where you always had to roll well to find another room to plunder, or sit around feeling frustrated and bored.
In a fictional procedural, whether it’s a mystery novel or an episode of a cop show, the emphasis isn’t on finding the clues in the first place. When it really matters, you may get a paragraph telling you how difficult the search was, or a montage of a CSI team tossing an apartment. But the action really starts after the clues are gathered.
INVESTIGATIVE SCENARIOS ARE NOT ABOUT FINDING CLUES,
THEY’RE ABOUT INTERPRETING THE CLUES YOU DO FIND.
GUMSHOE, therefore, makes the finding of clues all but automatic, as long as you get to the right place in the story and have the right ability. That’s when the fun part begins, when the players try to put the components of the puzzle together.
That’s hard enough for a group of armchair detectives, without withholding half the pieces from them.

Hite version

QuoteWe designed GUMSHOE to make that easier, clearer, and more direct. GUMSHOE exists to solve a problem that many people found with running Call of Cthulhu – one bad die roll can derail an adventure. You didn’t find the diary, so you didn’t get the spell, so either Arkham is destroyed or the Keeper has to scuttle ‘round and plant the diary somewhere else. In Trail of Cthulhu, the GUMSHOE rules guarantee that you will find that diary.

Boy, does Laws have a fucked up idea of what a dungeon crawl is all about.

If a lot of people share it, though, much becomes clear.

I know a lot of players who would agree with Laws. So many in fact that I left off dungeon crawling. An endless cycle of kicking the door, kill the monster, loot the treasure, with the occasional spice of a trick or trap does very little for me. But I have seen D&D played that way since the '70s. Several editions even encourage it in their DM notes on stocking a dungeon.

I am referring in particular to "treasure-gathering is not the main event."  The treasure is the whole damn reason you went down there.  That's why XP comes from gold.

The fact that so many people never understood why that was done does not make it a bad rule.

True. The primary in character motivation to brave those nasty monsters and traps is the chance at all that LOOT! Not to mention the EXP for gold, which it helps to think of as "EXP for everything you did in the dungeon that wasn't killing monsters", but "EXP for gold" is a lot more concise.

Out of character getting lots and lots of treasure was a pretty good motivation for us too. At least we could pretend to be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;926877That's why XP comes from gold.

For most editions of D&D, it doesn't.

Quote from: yosemitemike;927004For most editions of D&D, it doesn't.

Was still a thing in AD&D. It didnt stop till 2e. So no. Thats not "most editions"...

Quote from: Omega;927008Was still a thing in AD&D. It didnt stop till 2e. So no. Thats not "most editions"...

D&D, AD&D AD&D 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e.  It's not in three of five editions.  That's most editions.

Quote from: yosemitemike;927010D&D, AD&D AD&D 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e.  It's not in three of five editions.  That's most editions.

0D&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, BECMI, Cyclopedia, AD&D1e, AD&D 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 5e. That's eleven editions by my count.  Mike can't count, he lists six editions then says "three of five". Pretty sure it's in six of eleven.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927032Mike can't count, he lists six editions then says "three of five".

So I wasn't the only one who read that and said, WTF?

Quote from: yosemitemike;927004For most editions of D&D, it doesn't.

One of the places they went wrong.

Remove Xp for gold, don't boost monster Xp, remove restrictions on spell casting, boost spells, wonder why low levels are a bloodbath and magic users rule everything.

Just like Star Trek went to shit when control of the franchise moved from people who had worked on television and then did Star Trek to people who wanted to do Star Trek so they went into television, D&D has suffered immensely from moving from "guys who played a lot of games and then wrote D&D" to "people whose game experience is D&D being put in charge of D&D."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927088Just like Star Trek went to shit when control of the franchise moved from people who had worked on television and then did Star Trek to people who wanted to do Star Trek so they went into television, D&D has suffered immensely from moving from "guys who played a lot of games and then wrote D&D" to "people whose game experience is D&D being put in charge of D&D."

To be fair, I'm sure they also played cards games.

I always Star Trek went to shit when they switched from stories written by professional science fiction writers to using stories written by professional television writers.

I can't even speak to the current state of D&D. I quit the franchise entirely when 3.0 came out. I do sometimes play earlier editions and clones. I looked at the free 5e stuff, didn't even recognize it as D&D and walked away shaking my head.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927101I always Star Trek went to shit when they switched from stories written by professional science fiction writers to using stories written by professional television writers.

I can't even speak to the current state of D&D. I quit the franchise entirely when 3.0 came out. I do sometimes play earlier editions and clones. I looked at the free 5e stuff, didn't even recognize it as D&D and walked away shaking my head.

Yeah 5e can't be evaluated without comparing it to 4e, compared to which, it looks like a miraculous return to sanity.  In reality it's just that your head feels "better" because it's no longer being currently hit with a hammer.  Shadows of the core design ethos of the things that made 4e a different game entirely are still there.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926703I'm a firm believer in No Gaming is better than Bad Gaming, but to me Bad Gaming isn't "anything that isn't 100% perfectly wired in to what I want to do".

In the age of instant gratification via our gizmos, maybe some gamers can't hack gaming that isn't 100% to their wants/needs/tastes.

Quote from: MES;926283yesterday I played with my group and it was the third time in a row that I thought that it was really, really boring....The DM was basically telling the story as it was lined out by him and to be honest I am really not interested in the outcome of the whole thing.

Bummer, but it happens.

The only answer is it's high time for you to find a new group, or start your own game and invite them to play.

Quote from: MES;926283Another problem I had with the plot were slide inconsistencies like:

ALL the inconsistencies you mentioned look INTERESTING to me. I would be tracking down the answers to those questions, but if the final answer was the GM was just pulling shit out of his ass, then I'd bail too.

Quote from: MES;926283How would you tell the DM?

Goodbye and thank you, but this game isn't working for me.

Quote from: DavetheLost;9270320D&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, BECMI, Cyclopedia, AD&D1e, AD&D 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 5e. That's eleven editions by my count.  Mike can't count, he lists six editions then says "three of five". Pretty sure it's in six of eleven.

Sorry, I mean 4 of 6.  It was very late and I was tired.  4 of 6 is an even bigger majority though.

I would consider what you count as the first five versions listed as minor variations on the same thing.  I would also count 3e. 3.5 and Pathfinder as minor variations on the same thing.  If you don't like majority of editions as a measure, how about majority of time?  OD&D came out in 1974.  XP for gold was dropped in 1989.  It's 2016.  That's 42 years total.  For 15 of them, XP for gold was a thing and for 27 of them it wasn't.  That rule has been absent from the game for almost 2/3rds of its history.  You can slice it however you want, but gold=XP mostly isn't a thing in D&D and hasn't been for nearly 28 years.  

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927088One of the places they went wrong.

Remove Xp for gold, don't boost monster Xp, remove restrictions on spell casting, boost spells, wonder why low levels are a bloodbath and magic users rule everything.

That would be the result if you kept everything about the old rules and just removed XP for gold but that's not what actually was done in later editions.  You didn't get XP for gold in later editions but you did get a greater amount of XP for overcoming obstacles relative to the amount needed to level.

That later game where characters used all that gold to buy towers, churches or castles and become local lordlings and church officials isn't really much of a thing now and many people didn't do it even back then.  Some players really like that but many didn't care about it even back then.

Quote from: Spinachcat;927143ALL the inconsistencies you mentioned look INTERESTING to me. I would be tracking down the answers to those questions,

Jesus, yes.




I was going to put up an "I know, right?" meme, but this is much more awesome, even if completely off topic...

Spoiler

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/155445342/escadia49c822312ad16.jpg)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927088One of the places they went wrong.

Remove Xp for gold, don't boost monster Xp, remove restrictions on spell casting, boost spells, wonder why low levels are a bloodbath and magic users rule everything.

Just like Star Trek went to shit when control of the franchise moved from people who had worked on television and then did Star Trek to people who wanted to do Star Trek so they went into television, D&D has suffered immensely from moving from "guys who played a lot of games and then wrote D&D" to "people whose game experience is D&D being put in charge of D&D."

Star Trek went to shit when Abrams got involved.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927088Just like Star Trek went to shit when control of the franchise moved from people who had worked on television and then did Star Trek to people who wanted to do Star Trek so they went into television, D&D has suffered immensely from moving from "guys who played a lot of games and then wrote D&D" to "people whose game experience is D&D being put in charge of D&D."

I call it creative or artistic imbreeding. I think it's definitely visible in the evolution of heavy metal as well.

Yeah, there's definitely a lot of insight to be pulled from other games. I think opinions on things like "game balance" and "the golden rule" (more generally, rules that say you can break the rules) can be radically altered (from that of the majority) simply by playing and grokking the Illuminati card game, and that's not even straying that far from the RPG flock.

Some DMs like to write stories and have their players trapped in them. Simply stop showing up at such games.

Quote from: yosemitemike;927144That would be the result if you kept everything about the old rules and just removed XP for gold but that's not what actually was done in later editions.  You didn't get XP for gold in later editions but you did get a greater amount of XP for overcoming obstacles relative to the amount needed to level.

This has been a general trend on RPG design. A smaller proportion of XP for killing monsters and stealing treasure, a larger proportion of XP for good roleplaying and overcoming obstacles.
XP for gold was supposed to function as an abstract way of giving XP for all the non-combat stuff. But the idea never really quite clicked with a lot of gamers.

Really if you simple can't stand the GM's campaign, for whatever reason, bow out. Get involved in a different game, or take a break from gaming until the next campaign GM cycles round.
For me though it sounds like there are a bunch of potentially interesting threads to pull. For one I would like to know just how news of the garrison's strange behavior arrived so quickly.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927291This has been a general trend on RPG design. A smaller proportion of XP for killing monsters and stealing treasure, a larger proportion of XP for good roleplaying and overcoming obstacles.
XP for gold was supposed to function as an abstract way of giving XP for all the non-combat stuff. But the idea never really quite clicked with a lot of gamers.

No, XP for gold was supposed to turn wandering monsters into a hazard, not XP on the hoof.

But didn't wandering monsters still provide XP?  It's been so long since i actually read the Original rules I can't remember.

It is entirely possible I am misattributing later comentary to 0e. After so many years in the hobby, most of it GMing there is a lot of "this is the way it works" that isn't actually in the books.

Also, I was, and am, pretty far removed from Lake Geneva, didn't read a lot of Dragon, etc. So I was in one of those isolated pockets that learned the game by word of mouth and independant interpretation.

Yes, wandering monsters gave XP.  But ALL monster XP was chump change compared to 1 GP = 1 XP.

If you could sneak 1000 GP away from the 10 Orcs you were better off than killing the Orcs and getting the gold, because it didn't cost you any hit points, which meant you could stay in the dungeon longer.

Yes, that's why we took gangs of bearers and trains of mules with us into the dungeons. Someone had to carry all that loot, and encumberance was a bitch.
Then there was all the treasure that was in valuable, but bulky objects...especially valuable, bulky, delicate objects.

Although I did once put a pair of life sized solid gold statues of percherons in a dungeon. Don't ask me how thety got there, but they drove my players nuts trying to come up with a scheme to recover them... Enough XP for the whole party to level twice over, if they could keep the sculpture intact.

Quote from: cranebump;927150Star Trek went to shit when Abrams got involved.

Yes, because the intelligible-to-trekkies-only bullshit that was Star Trek was made accessible to everyone again by JJ Abrams. That bastard.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927147I was going to put up an "I know, right?" meme, but this is much more awesome, even if completely off topic...

Spoiler

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/155445342/escadia49c822312ad16.jpg)

Which makes my mind wander even further off topic.

Spoiler

[ATTACH=CONFIG]491[/ATTACH]

Which makes me miss Gamma World!

I don't like XP at all, but if I were to use XP in a game, it would be based on what I want the theme of the campaign to be about. If its Swords & Sorcery rogue adventurers hexcrawling for trouble and loot, then XP for gold works great. If its High Fantasy heroes on a mission for King & Country, then XP for gold doesn't work.

Quote from: MES;926283Hallo Forum [etc]

Dear OP, if your DM is such a pitiful DM, presumably you feel you can do a better job? Then do so. Propose giving the DM a break of a few weeks while you run a 4-session mini-campaign. After the 1st session, explain the DMing philosophy you're going to bring to your mini-campaign in a way he can derive inspiration from, without feeling targeted by it. You can do so under cover of asking for feedback from the group (feedback for your own DMing).

Quote from: Lunamancer;926299Maybe it's just me, but how am I supposed to get excited about investigating the deaths of some cows?

Maybe all is not as it seems? If your character would get excited, follow their excitement. Probably the DM is not actually going to limit it to some cows dying for the entire length of the campaign.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;927262Some DMs like to write stories and have their players trapped in them. Simply stop showing up at such games.

That's a bit fatalistic isn't it? People are social creatures and games are a social experience. Part of the onus is on the players to help the GM to get better at GMing and (additionally) to get the most out of the game. Sometimes GMs haven't fully thought through how their GMing style plays out, and will modify it when prompted. If your first response is to vote with your feet, it's a bit like no-platforming someone because you want a safe space and trigger warnings. There may simply have been a few misunderstandings along the way. Radical disengagement is not always the answer, and should rarely be the first answer.

Quote from: jeff37923;927327Yes, because the intelligible-to-trekkies-only bullshit that was Star Trek was made accessible to everyone again by JJ Abrams. That bastard.

I guess I'm not everyone then. I couldn't make it past the third scene or so of the second Abrams movie, due to the insufferable level of Abrams nonsense. My "honest trailers" script would read something like, "IMAGINE a uuuniverse where only the best are chosen for starship command, so naturally they have to throw out all their silly rules and regulations to make room for the tremendous ego of Millennial James T. Kirk, the young buff man-child version of Shatner's Kirk, but mad at the universe for having been orphaned or something, and so addicted to taking pointless risks with everyone and everything around him, and breaking every rule in the book, but getting away with it because drool of cool rules this universe, and no one's brass medals beat this punk captain's brass balls, which will bend your disbelief to the breaking point accompanied by amazing pacing, dazzling pacing, attractive young hip people somehow being senior officers, and gratuitous sexy time.

Not to mention the "intelligible to trekkies" shit started in Pepsi Generation.  Roddenberry wasn't even involved at first, and by then was believing his own hype anyway - not to mention Roddenberry died in 91.  Frankly, as time has gone on, each iteration of Star Trek has sucked worse and worse.

The thing I hated about the New Khan movie is the same thing I hated about other ST movies and series, that has the Klingon capital world 20 fucking minutes from Earth.  Yeah I realize Abrahms, fast-paced, bang boom pow, etc.  Even Star Wars the supposedly less cerebral space film series, had scenes and time pass between Tatooine and Alderaan.

Quote from: Skarg;927457I guess I'm not everyone then. I couldn't make it past the third scene or so of the second Abrams movie, do to the insufferable level of Abrams nonsense. My "honest trailers" script would read something like, "IMAGINE a uuuniverse where only the best are chosen for starship command, so naturally they have to throw out all their silly rules and regulations to make room for the tremendous ego of Millennial James T. Kirk, the young buff man-child version of Shatner's Kirk, but mad at the universe for having been orphaned or something, and so addicted to taking pointless risks with everyone and everything around him, and breaking every rule in the book, but getting away with it because drool of cool rules this universe, and no one's brass medals beat this punk captain's brass balls, which will bend your disbelief to the breaking point accompanied by amazing pacing, dazzling pacing, attractive young hip people somehow being senior officers, and gratuitous sexy time.

You forgot to bitch about lens flare.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927511Not to mention the "intelligible to trekkies" shit started in Pepsi Generation.  Roddenberry wasn't even involved at first, and by then was believing his own hype anyway - not to mention Roddenberry died in 91.  Frankly, as time has gone on, each iteration of Star Trek has sucked worse and worse.

So you agree that Roddenberry ruined his own master creation, gotcha. Paramount just finished the job on the TV series.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927512The thing I hated about the New Khan movie is the same thing I hated about other ST movies and series, that has the Klingon capital world 20 fucking minutes from Earth.  Yeah I realize Abrahms, fast-paced, bang boom pow, etc.  Even Star Wars the supposedly less cerebral space film series, had scenes and time pass between Tatooine and Alderaan.

Not going to disagree. "Starships travel at the speed of plot" doesn't work for me either.

Quote from: jeff37923;927542Not going to disagree. "Starships travel at the speed of plot" doesn't work for me either.

Trek ships have always traveled at the speed of plot.

To be honest Star Wars has a certain amount of ships travelling at the speed and location of plot too. It's just usually less noticeable. Star Wars has other storytelling flaws to distract you.

Quote from: jeff37923;927327Yes, because the intelligible-to-trekkies-only bullshit that was Star Trek was made accessible to everyone again by JJ Abrams. That bastard.

If Trek were unintelligible to all but a few geeks, then I doubt it'd still be around. It's always been accessible to everyone, because the stories are human stories. I'll put it this way, I watched my first Trek Episode in reruns, when I was 11 or 12, I think. Grokking the show took no special knowledge.

Abrams is perfect for Star Wars. It shows in the way he approached the new Trek (how much shit does he need to blow up?). I'm all for their monetary success, since I want to see the franchise continue. So, yeah, it's going to see some changes. But it isn't the Trek I know (it isn't intended to be, because I am old, and don't go to the movies anymore). However, I just don't think Abrams cares that much about Trek. It's just another toy he can play with to gives us the same movie 3 times.

On another note, Gronan, you are often intentionally full of shit, but the shit is particularly high on your claim that every iteration of Trek is worse than the first. Enterprise was not as good as its predecessors, certainly. But DS9 took the franchise to places it had never gone. Most consistently best written version of the franchise, by far. Just look at the stable of writers. That said, you can easily say the show didn't really count as a true Trek show due to its less than fully optimistic look at the future. It wasn't what Roddenberry woulda done. But then, Gene's stuff came from a different time.

One thing I'll readily admit about Original Trek: there never has been anything, in any of the other series, that is quite like the Kirk-Spock-McCoy synergy (you can think Gene Coon for a lot of that).

Quote from: yosemitemike;927546Trek ships have always traveled at the speed of plot.

 He's right, of course. And that explains why Romulan cloak, Dominion dampening device, and Klingon shock troops are no biggy. They can never outrun PLOT! :-)

Quote from: cranebump;927592If Trek were unintelligible to all but a few geeks, then I doubt it'd still be around. It's always been accessible to everyone, because the stories are human stories. I'll put it this way, I watched my first Trek Episode in reruns, when I was 11 or 12, I think. Grokking the show took no special knowledge.

OK, I will buy that the stories were human stories, but the problem was that most of the situations and complications were from established canon that kept getting deeper and more complicated with each episode to the point that only a hardcore trekkie could follow it.

Quote from: cranebump;927592On another note, Gronan, you are often intentionally full of shit, but the shit is particularly high on your claim that every iteration of Trek is worse than the first. Enterprise was not as good as its predecessors, certainly. But DS9 took the franchise to places it had never gone. Most consistently best written version of the franchise, by far. Just look at the stable of writers. That said, you can easily say the show didn't really count as a true Trek show due to its less than fully optimistic look at the future. It wasn't what Roddenberry woulda done. But then, Gene's stuff came from a different time.

That and Gene Roddenberry could not adapt to the newer audience. The DS9 episode "By The Pale Moonlight" could never have happened under Gene Roddenberry, and that episode should be required watching for every science fiction screenwriter. The entire subplot of the Maquis vs the uneasy alliance between the Federation and the Cardassians would never have been allowed under Gene Roddenberry.

EDIT: Found the best part of the episode on Youtube.

This scene would NEVER have happened under Roddenberry, because it questions the founding principles the Federation is supposed to champion.

[video=youtube;K-YyL7X4CWw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-YyL7X4CWw[/youtube]

Quote from: jeff37923;927594OK, I will buy that the stories were human stories, but the problem was that most of the situations and complications were from established canon that kept getting deeper and more complicated with each episode to the point that only a hardcore trekkie could follow it.

Ah. Yeah, I can see that.

QuoteThat and Gene Roddenberry could not adapt to the newer audience. The DS9 episode "By The Pale Moonlight" could never have happened under Gene Roddenberry, and that episode should be required watching for every science fiction screenwriter. The entire subplot of the Maquis vs the uneasy alliance between the Federation and the Cardassians would never have been allowed under Gene Roddenberry.

Man, was that a great episode. To your previous point, I'd have to agree that diving into DS9 after the Dominion War was cranked up (perhaps sometime before), would have required knowledge of what hath come before. The same argument could be applied, I guess, to the THG movies. So, if the argument is that Abrams made Trek accessible by divorcing it from cannon, I would say that's true. I just think he went a step further by divorcing it from what I thought were "Trek sensibilities." But my own view on this is firmly ingrained, having watched all those shows multiple times now (thanks to Netflix). Of course, my personal antipathy for Abrams as a soulless minion of modern cinematic orthodoxy has nothing at all to do with my opinion of what he did with Trek.:-)

Quote from: jeff37923;927594OK, I will buy that the stories were human stories, but the problem was that most of the situations and complications were from established canon that kept getting deeper and more complicated with each episode to the point that only a hardcore trekkie could follow it.

You don't really need to know any of that stuff to watch and follow the shows though.  In the case of Enterprise, knowing the canon just makes the show more confusing because Enterprise doesn't give a fuuuuck.  Only a hardcore Trekkie would get everything referenced and know its full meaning but that's not necessary to watch the shows at all.

So do you think 1) the OP was a troll, 2) we scared the OP away, or 3) the OP has died from boredom?

Quote from: CRKrueger;927109Yeah 5e can't be evaluated without comparing it to 4e, compared to which, it looks like a miraculous return to sanity.  In reality it's just that your head feels "better" because it's no longer being currently hit with a hammer.  Shadows of the core design ethos of the things that made 4e a different game entirely are still there.

So true. But it still harkens back to the TSR era better than 3 or 4.

Back on topic.

So what did the other players think of the session. Did they think it was boring? One player baulking does not a boring game make. It may make for an annoying game though for the rest.

I gamed with a player who got bored with any sort of negotiation with NPCs or monsters and tended to try and sabotage it when they got bored. The other players were having fun till all hell breaks loose or they get denied entry to the temple to be healed.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927317Yes, wandering monsters gave XP.  But ALL monster XP was chump change compared to 1 GP = 1 XP.

If you could sneak 1000 GP away from the 10 Orcs you were better off than killing the Orcs and getting the gold, because it didn't cost you any hit points, which meant you could stay in the dungeon longer.

Right. Much the same in BX. 30 orcs is 150 exp. But their lair could net you on average 1000 GP worth of EXP. Sometimes lots more, sometimes lots less)

Quote from: jeff37923;927327Yes, because the intelligible-to-trekkies-only bullshit that was Star Trek was made accessible to everyone again by JJ Abrams. That bastard.

Intelligible to everyone and and totally inane idiot plots. Oh and the explosions and hey lets make the enterprise fucking enormous and hey lets remove interracial relations and replace it with an alien and hey time travel again! etc ad nausium.

Quote from: yosemitemike;927546Trek ships have always traveled at the speed of plot.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927581To be honest Star Wars has a certain amount of ships travelling at the speed and location of plot too. It's just usually less noticeable. Star Wars has other storytelling flaws to distract you.

I think in some cases its not speed of plot. Its just lazy time skips. It took a week to get from point A to point B. But on screen it looks like they made it there in minutes.

To be fair sometimes they do say "it will take three days to reach planet redshirt death..." and then segue to orbit of destination.

Quote from: cranebump;927597Of course, my personal antipathy for Abrams as a soulless minion of modern cinematic orthodoxy has nothing at all to do with my opinion of what he did with Trek.:-)

I disagree with you on Abrams, but damn if that isn't a nice insult.
I'm going to steal it!  :D

Quote from: yosemitemike;927624You don't really need to know any of that stuff to watch and follow the shows though.  In the case of Enterprise, knowing the canon just makes the show more confusing because Enterprise doesn't give a fuuuuck.  Only a hardcore Trekkie would get everything referenced and know its full meaning but that's not necessary to watch the shows at all.

I started getting lost with Voyager and their snapping of my disbelief suspenders. By the time Enterprise came on I was completely disinterested.

And I will admit that while I loved a lot of the writing in DS9, the final episode where Sisko fights Dukat in a reskinned version of Christ descending into Hell to fight Satan for the souls of the Damned was one of the lamest series finales I have ever seen. Only exceeded in craptasticness by the finale of Voyager.

Quote from: jeff37923;927670I started getting lost with Voyager and their snapping of my disbelief suspenders. By the time Enterprise came on I was completely disinterested.

Voyager hardly even referenced the canon because it was set in the Delta quadrant.  Voyager created its own problems like basing several episodes on one of the dullest, least interesting villain races in Trek: the Kazon.  Enterprise drove Trekkies nuts with how often it flipped the bird to the continuity.  

Quote from: jeff37923;927670And I will admit that while I loved a lot of the writing in DS9, the final episode where Sisko fights Dukat in a reskinned version of Christ descending into Hell to fight Satan for the souls of the Damned was one of the lamest series finales I have ever seen. Only exceeded in craptasticness by the finale of Voyager.

I think DS9 was the best written of all the Trek series but the finale was short on subtlety.  It carried through with the religious themes set up around Sisko as the Emissary but it did so in a rather ham-handed way.  The voyager finale was just really rushed and contrived.  We need to get them the rest of the way before the end of this season.  Blah blah time travel blah blah Borg conduit they're home now done.

Quote from: yosemitemike;927674Voyager hardly even referenced the canon because it was set in the Delta quadrant.  Voyager created its own problems like basing several episodes on one of the dullest, least interesting villain races in Trek: the Kazon.  Enterprise drove Trekkies nuts with how often it flipped the bird to the continuity.  

I think DS9 was the best written of all the Trek series but the finale was short on subtlety.  It carried through with the religious themes set up around Sisko as the Emissary but it did so in a rather ham-handed way.  The voyager finale was just really rushed and contrived.  We need to get them the rest of the way before the end of this season.  Blah blah time travel blah blah Borg conduit they're home now done.

That pretty much sums up the Voyager finale. There was no denouement. Poof, we're home, no reflection on what just happened, and yes, more time travel shenanigans (I felt like Brannon Braga couldn't write an episode without some form of time travel--though he isn't credited as a script writer for the finale). And, yeah, did the Kazon just simply suck.

Speaking of time travel stuff: Enterprise and that "Temporal Cold War." That stuff...sheesh (and there he is, Brannon Braga, all over the place in seasons 1-3 Enterprise).

Oh yeah....time travel endings, TNG did it, too. But at least the interplay between Q & Pic was interesting.

Quote from: yosemitemike;927674Voyager hardly even referenced the canon because it was set in the Delta quadrant.  Voyager created its own problems like basing several episodes on one of the dullest, least interesting villain races in Trek: the Kazon.

Never did watch Voyager, looked up the Kazon in Memory Alpha, and another ridged-forehead proud warrior race? Seriously?

Quote from: yosemitemike;927674The voyager finale was just really rushed and contrived.  We need to get them the rest of the way before the end of this season.  Blah blah time travel blah blah Borg conduit they're home now done.

Quote from: cranebump;927685That pretty much sums up the Voyager finale. There was no denouement. Poof, we're home, no reflection on what just happened, and yes, more time travel shenanigans (I felt like Brannon Braga couldn't write an episode without some form of time travel--though he isn't credited as a script writer for the finale). And, yeah, did the Kazon just simply suck.

I could deal with the time travel junk in the Voyager finale, but could not believe how the character of Admiral Janeway just completely abandoned the majority of her strong personal convictions to go back in time to save the crew from the "Trail of Tears" that she and the survivors went through.

Quote from: jeff37923;927690I could deal with the time travel junk in the Voyager finale, but could not believe how the character of Admiral Janeway just completely abandoned the majority of her strong personal convictions to go back in time to save the crew from the "Trail of Tears" that she and the survivors went through.

Worse than that. She went back in time to save ONE person. Knowing she was going to undo and possibly ruin everyone else who survived's  established lives.

Quote from: jeff37923;927690I could deal with the time travel junk in the Voyager finale, but could not believe how the character of Admiral Janeway just completely abandoned the majority of her strong personal convictions to go back in time to save the crew from the "Trail of Tears" that she and the survivors went through.

The character of Janeway was extremely inconsistent.  Her personality changed depending on who was writing a given episode.  Her personality shifted around so much that Mulgrew thought the character must be manic-depressive if not outright nuts.  Sometimes she was adamant about her principles.  Other times...not so much.  The extreme inconsistency of Janeway's character was one of Voyagers main writing issues.

Quote from: yosemitemike;927795...Mulgrew thought the character must be manic-depressive if not outright nuts.

Well then, there's your rationale for her changing the timeline to save one person. :D Now that I think about it, the USS Relativity and 29th Century Starfleet certainly knew about Janeway and her ability to seemingly zero in on time paradoxes. If future Janeway was changing their history, wouldn't they have tried to stop her?

Quote from: Krimson;927804Well then, there's your rationale for her changing the timeline to save one person. :D Now that I think about it, the USS Relativity and 29th Century Starfleet certainly knew about Janeway and her ability to seemingly zero in on time paradoxes. If future Janeway was changing their history, wouldn't they have tried to stop her?

The final timeline with Voyager getting home after 7 years was the "correct" timeline and Janeway was actually doing what she was meant to do.  There's always a handwave.

Quote from: yosemitemike;927811The final timeline with Voyager getting home after 7 years was the "correct" timeline and Janeway was actually doing what she was meant to do.  There's always a handwave.

You yourself said her character changed depending on who was writing the episode. So there is a meta explanation right there, but yes it would be nice to have a canon rationale. I personally handwaved it in my head canon in that Janeway really did seem to be Mrs Columbo when it came to time related stuff.

Quote from: Krimson;927816You yourself said her character changed depending on who was writing the episode. So there is a meta explanation right there, but yes it would be nice to have a canon rationale. I personally handwaved it in my head canon in that Janeway really did seem to be Mrs Columbo when it came to time related stuff.

The simple canon explanation was that Janeway had changed in the intervening years because of the hardships that she and her crew had gone through.  She wasn't the same person any more.  She did seem to be involved in a lot of time travel shenanigans even when she didn't mean to be.

Quote from: DavetheLost;9270320D&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, BECMI, Cyclopedia, AD&D1e, AD&D 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 5e. That's eleven editions by my count.  Mike can't count, he lists six editions then says "three of five". Pretty sure it's in six of eleven.

Three out of five in what he listed is correct.
In yours it would be six out of ten.

4e is not D&D.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927627So do you think 1) the OP was a troll, 2) we scared the OP away, or 3) the OP has died from boredom?

4) OP dealt with the issues, and moved on with his life. Unlike us.

Alright then!

Our group played again yesterday and we decided to discuss my issues after the session.

Long story short: It was a honest and fruitful discussion. Our group consists of 4 people (DM, F, N and myself)
I stated that I found the story dragging in parts - especially the cattle-investigation plot - and I also told everyone what I liked about playing adventures in a medieval fantasy setting and what I liked about the DMs adventure in particular. Our discussion centred mostly around the cattle plot and we discussed for about 25 minutes.
F agreed with me, as in that he found the investigation part dragging and while playing he realised that I was bored, but he also hoped that the plot would gain more pace and did not say anything. N did not care as much for the plot as he had just as much fun in any adventure. F is a very experienced P&P player and I thought that he pointed out pretty sophisticated stuff.
For instance

Quote: "It's funny, that problems of a hobby that is all about communication, are the result of a lack of communication."

He also suggested that we could play a system in which no DM is needed and that is all about what the players want to play together, to get a better feeling for overall succesful storytelling and gameplay. (some western setting system?)
To sum up:
We agreed on giving the DM (whoever it is) suggestions what we want to experience while playing beforehand and to communicate (not discuss) more in the sessions to come. Discussing which things we liked or did not like to play was a good idea, but I also believe that it does not work with every group. We've been playing now for almost 3 years (?) straight and an open critique also could do a lot of harm to a group.

My advice: Keep the discussion problem oriented and suggest solution for whatever might concern you.

I am sorry, that I did not go into too much detail about the discussion, but I am short of time at the moment and I did not want to keep you waiting.
 :)
If you want more details or in case you got questions please write them down, I ll answer later!

Quote from: RPGPundit;9287254e is not D&D.

I'll have to take your word on that. I don't think I've ever so much as cracked the cover on a 4e product.

@MES glad to hear things are hopefully getting better.

Glad y'all hashed it out. Player input, and the trust it hopefully engenders, is always helpful.

Quote from: DavetheLost;928755I'll have to take your word on that. I don't think I've ever so much as cracked the cover on a 4e product.

It "seemed" like it was D&D while I read the rules. In actual play, however, it felt more like a D&D-inspired miniatures battle game.

Which is OKAY, if that's what it was supposed to be. I just couldn't perceive it as a traditional RPG.



On topic, I'm very glad that things worked out. I've always emphasized that honest communication is KEY to a good campaign or player group.

Quote from: MES;928747Alright then!

Our group played again yesterday and we decided to discuss my issues after the session.

Long story short: It was a honest and fruitful discussion. Our group consists of 4 people (DM, F, N and myself)
I stated that I found the story dragging in parts - especially the cattle-investigation plot - and I also told everyone what I liked about playing adventures in a medieval fantasy setting and what I liked about the DMs adventure in particular. Our discussion centred mostly around the cattle plot and we discussed for about 25 minutes.
F agreed with me, as in that he found the investigation part dragging and while playing he realised that I was bored, but he also hoped that the plot would gain more pace and did not say anything. N did not care as much for the plot as he had just as much fun in any adventure. F is a very experienced P&P player and I thought that he pointed out pretty sophisticated stuff.
For instance

Quote: "It's funny, that problems of a hobby that is all about communication, are the result of a lack of communication."

He also suggested that we could play a system in which no DM is needed and that is all about what the players want to play together, to get a better feeling for overall succesful storytelling and gameplay. (some western setting system?)
To sum up:
We agreed on giving the DM (whoever it is) suggestions what we want to experience while playing beforehand and to communicate (not discuss) more in the sessions to come. Discussing which things we liked or did not like to play was a good idea, but I also believe that it does not work with every group. We've been playing now for almost 3 years (?) straight and an open critique also could do a lot of harm to a group.

My advice: Keep the discussion problem oriented and suggest solution for whatever might concern you.

I am sorry, that I did not go into too much detail about the discussion, but I am short of time at the moment and I did not want to keep you waiting.
 :)
If you want more details or in case you got questions please write them down, I ll answer later!

Sounds good. I think that nebulous feeling that the game is "dragging" is one of those unwritten things that DMs either get a handle on and adjust for mid-session intuitively or sometimes not.

Quote from: MES;928747Our group played again yesterday and we decided to discuss my issues after the session.

Which just goes to show that talking about a problem is by far the best solution.