The Winter of My Discontent

[Brennan Taylor]

I have come to a realization. I am an annoying and demanding player. I get bored easily, and when bored I wander off, ignore the game, or engage in destructive in-game behavior. I began to think about why this was.

I tend to GM more often than I play, and I think it is because GMing holds my interest better—there is always something going on. I am by all accounts a good GM, and my players really enjoy the games I run. I think this is because I am responsive to their desires and I incorporate what they want into the main tapestry of the story. I most often play games with a traditional distribution of control between the GM and player, as in the GM holds the vast majority of the cards. Because I distribute a lot of this control downwards as a GM, the players feel more empowered to pursue their own agenda, and thus the game is fulfilling. I think most GMs are not like this, and that is why I become bored.

Now, for some actual play examples:

Case #1: I run an awesome game of Legend of the Five Rings.
I have eight players in this game, and I have had to decline some others who have expressed interest. The game has been going for over five years, with some amazing history now invested in these characters, who started from the very bottom and are now approaching the peak amount of power they can attain in the system. L5R is game with a huge metaplot, and I have set my game within this metaplot. However, I have replaced key NPCs from the game books with player characters, who then have influence over the course of the game world's history. A player expressed interest in having his character become romantically involved with an NPC from the book, which we then developed in the game (discarding the written romance from the official source). The players feel important, and are altering the course of history in the game world, and they are having a blast.

Case #2: As a player, I act like an asshole.
My friend is a Champions fiend, he loves the game and runs a long-term supers game using the rules. By the time I moved away from his locale, I had gone through four different characters in the game, searching for one that was satisfying. My wife loves the game, and has a character that is the focus of a huge story centering on her relationship with the millionaire sponsor of our superhero team. I try to build interesting hooks in my backstory with each successive character, but the GM never takes me up on them. In despair, I begin looking for trouble, having my character wander off on his own in the hopes something will happen to him. In the end, I just stop participating, and the GM grows annoyed that I regularly leave the table to chat and drink beer in the kitchen with other players.

Case #3: The GM gives me what I want.
This time, the game is Feng Shui. The GM runs a scenario in which our characters meet a reclusive swords master, and are trained by him. I am given a powerful weapon at the end of this sequence, and the NPCs and subplots I propose are taken up by the GM and I feel powerful, both in terms of my influence on the course of the game, and in-game with my character. This is one of the most fulfilling game experiences I have had.


My point, I think, is that most games are not able to give me what I want. If I don't feel like my agenda is being fulfilled, I am a complete jerk while I play. I have often wondered why I prefer GMing over playing, and the reason is that most games don't give me any control if I am not in the GM seat. This can be avoided if the GM is very good, but if he is not, I am not willing to participate.

At this stage in my life, with two grade-school children and two game-related small businesses consuming my attention, I don't feel like GMing. I like to put some preparation into the games beforehand, which I now never have the time to do. I want to play. The problem is that I have a lot of trouble finding a game I can get in. My circle of friends are still very invested in games with the "classic" distribution of power, and the few forays into other game systems have met with resistance.

[TonyLB]

Ouch.

You have identified two issues here that leap out at me:[list=1][*]You are not happy with a classical distribution of power.[*]Your gaming group is insistent on a classical distribution of power.[/list:o]Not to be terribly harsh, but... end of story.

You want reliable power to express your creative impulses.  That places your GM (any GM) in the following position:  If I do not treat Brennan's suggestions with such consistent seriousness that it equates to reliable power then I am failing him, with all the consequent discontent.

When playing a game where you have no in-built power (in the rules) to shove things in your direction, that means you are counting on your GM to be a mind-reading saint.

Y'want my suggestion?  Run a one-shot session of Dogs, for whoever will show up.  I'll email you a town, if you don't want to do prep work.  It's a game that seems to have classical distribution of power, until you get into it... and by the time players are into it, they're done for.

[Brennan Taylor]

You have identified two issues here that leap out at me:[list=1][*]You are not happy with a classical distribution of power.[*]Your gaming group is insistent on a classical distribution of power.[/list:o]Not to be terribly harsh, but... end of story.

That ain't harsh, it's just true.

When playing a game where you have no in-built power (in the rules) to shove things in your direction, that means you are counting on your GM to be a mind-reading saint.

My problem in a nutshell.

Y'want my suggestion?  Run a one-shot session of Dogs, for whoever will show up.  I'll email you a town, if you don't want to do prep work.  It's a game that seems to have classical distribution of power, until you get into it... and by the time players are into it, they're done for.

I have run Dogs, and it was enjoyable. It was only with two of the players in my regular group. I am willing to experiment, and I want to find some games that serve my needs more reliably, but playing them is still dependent on me running them, at this point. No one else in the group has been grabbed by a new game enough to run it. I am the most exposed to games that break out of this mold, and I am currently trying to introduce them to the group. This still leaves a lot on me, though, since I don't necessarily feel comfortable saying, "Hey, this is a cool new game. You run it."

[Lance D. Allen]

With your identified problems, you're kind of in a rough spot. There are games out there which will meet your needs, but you'll have to run them. You don't want to run because you don't have time to put in satisfactory prep.

I see two possible solutions, which I'm not sure will suit you well.

1. Run something with very little pre-game prep required. I believe MLwM is this way, but cannot speak from experience. Dogs doesn't seem to require a buttload, and there are a lot of pre-genned towns if even the little bit required is more than you have time for. You'll have to do this enough for one of your players to feel interested and comfident enough to run.

2. Find a new group. This is never easy, especially if you want to break out of traditional styles of play. Unfortunately, if your current group isn't meeting your needs, it may be the only viable option, despite the difficulty of finding a group that does what you want.

Alternately.. Have you spoken to your current GM about this? Others have said you can't change someone else's play style, and that's true.. But if it's just a matter of miscommunication, it's quite possible they're willing to change it up a bit to make it work for you as well. Even if they're willing to try, it may not end up working out, but I think that trying is preferable to leaving the group without first trying.

I feel for you, man. I've been there, too.

[Brennan Taylor]

When playing a game where you have no in-built power (in the rules) to shove things in your direction, that means you are counting on your GM to be a mind-reading saint.

I just realized that this is part of my problem with GMing lately. My players are happy, but I feel like I have been doing a shitty job because I'm not a mind-reading saint.

[Matt Snyder]

I humbly recommend trying both of my published games, Dust Devils and Nine Worlds. I wrote both exactly to address concerns like yours here:

I have often wondered why I prefer GMing over playing, and the reason is that most games don't give me any control if I am not in the GM seat.

That was my own thinking to some extent, though I'm not certain I was a disruptive player. Just a largely unsatisfied one. I've had a better time of it since designing those games, playing them and others with similar ideas.

[Callan S.]

When playing a game where you have no in-built power (in the rules) to shove things in your direction, that means you are counting on your GM to be a mind-reading saint.

I just realized that this is part of my problem with GMing lately. My players are happy, but I feel like I have been doing a shitty job because I'm not a mind-reading saint.

Your not the only one. But keep in mind, in the mainstream the dominant idea is that immersion is all and the PC's must only have the powers that they have. Players can't have story altering powers...that ruins immersion! And that's the whole point! Not.

Then games come out where the PC have or can get powers which by their nature, shape the story. And these kewl powers games become popular. Crazy, eh?

[Bankuei]

Hi Brennan,

Although I don't act out, I do recognize that discontent.  For me, personally, often my characters are deprotagonized- that is to say- I get no real input on where things are going in play, and my actions are railroaded out of having any meaningful impact.  So- I GM, where at least I'm guaranteed some input.

I was fortunate to have had a few long term groups where that wasn't the case, but aside from those groups- most folks who I've gotten to game with are hardcore Illusionist/Sim types, and I just don't dig it at all.

I'd have to recommend either playing with the folks who are willing to experiment, and hopefully, take up the task of GMing some of these alternate games, or just finding new people.

Chris

[John Burdick]

We had a cranky jerk acting out of frustration in our group. At the same time, I was glad to be playing after going for years without, but wanted more. That's when I started reading these forums.

Since the gm is a thoughtful, open-minded person, I was able to discuss both problems. Before long, better understanding on my part, and the gm adapting to better fit what I wanted led to good play for me. Games that were enjoyable for the cranky player took longer. One of the things we did many evenings was play board games and card games. That way we could get together and play even with the outstanding issue still unresolved.

Now, even the cranky player enjoys playing rpgs again.  I guess I'm agreeing with Wolfen that talking sometimes does work, even though it's iffy and takes time. After one game the gm mentioned to me that it was refreshing to dispense with all illusion.

John

[Ben Lehman]

That is exactly why I wrote Polaris's goverance rules.  Exactly.

yrs--
--Ben

[Andrew Cooper]

Have you considered trying The Framework?  It's in the resource section of this site.  I forget the name of the individual who developed it.   It's a method for sharing GM power without changing the rule system you are currently using.  It would allow you to play as a player but also periodically jump in as the GM and push things the direction you want to go.  I don't know that this would help but it might be worth a try.