[WHFR][CoC]Two experiences, both bad, where am I going wrong

[lumpley]

David, if you're still looking for us to put names to things:

Whiff Factor
The effect of a high failure-rate for a given Resolution mechanic, especially when the rate does not accord with the character's expected competence. A common source of Deprotagonizing; usually considered a Design flaw.

Which leads us to:

Deprotagonize (Paul Czege)
To limit or devalue another person's opportunity to establish their character as a protagonist during Narrativist play. Note that this is specific to Paul's use of Protagonism strictly in the limited Narrativist context.

Which further leads us to:

Protagonism
A problematic term with two possible meanings. (1) A characteristic of the main characters of stories, regardless of who produced the stories in whatever way. (2) A characteristic set of behaviors among people during role-playing, associated with Narrativist play, with a necessary unnamed equivalent in Gamist play and possibly another in Simulationist play. In the latter sense, coined by Paul Czege.

So, protagonism, and let's ignore the problems and the focus in sense (2), we can get into "Narrativist play" some other time. Meanwhile, protagonism's a desirable thing - it's your character's contribution not only to what happens in the game, but to what's meaningful in the game. Constant "whiffing," like you describe in (at least) your Warhammer play, can be deadly to your character's ability to accomplish anything, let alone anything meaningful. As you found!

Illusionism
A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features. See Illusionism: a new look and a new approach and Illusionism and GNS. Term coined by Paul Elliott.

("A family of Techniques" just means "a way to play.")

So, what I see is: rolling lots of low-odds rolls, thus whiffing all the time, thus being unable to contribute to the game, altogether very consistent with a way to play that puts everything worthwhile in the hands of the GM.

I guess some players enjoy that. I'm not confident that they do, really - but some players say they enjoy it and fat lot of good it'll do me to try to tell them otherwise.

But anyway, compare that to Rob's D&D game. It's clear just from the questions he's asking us that he's not interested in having everything worthwhile be in his own hands. "How do I give the players meaningful decisions to make?" "How do I cut short boring encounters without taking away the players' decision-making?" "How do I build tension without fudging?" (Fudging is, after all, another kind of a whiff - the good thing happened, but only because the GM made it; in terms of fun and fulfillment, a whiff's just as good.) There's a GM who can see what's fun and who's willing to give everybody theirs.

-Vincent
and the glossary.

[mutex]

In the case of the WarHammer game, it sounds like Frustrated Author Syndrome.  The GM sounds like he's made a competent story, with lots of nice acting.  That's great.  He should write it down in short story form and keep it as far away from the gaming table as possible.  Actually, now that I think of it, he would probably really enjoy PrimeTime Adventures (Sorry to suggest a different game, Ron, but it really does sound like this guy is happier making stories than playing games).

In the case of the Call of Cthulhu group...  well, that's just plain, old bunkering.  Yeah, y'all are completely right.  This crew has survived too long.  If I were their GM (God help them), I would have wiped them out long ago.  Especially considering that very few Lovecraft protagonists survived a whole story, let alone a series.  An example would be that while their characters are studying, one of them becomes increasingly obsessed with some dark grimoire they picked up on their last adventurer.  Of course, he becomes enthralled by something horrifying, and it's up to the rest of the group to stop him.

In the case of you, I'd say that your guild simply does not enjoy the same kinds of play as you.  I'd suggest you try a couple completely different games with them to see if you can all enjoy something different together.  If they flatly turn you down, I'd find a new group.  If y'all don't really enjoy playing the new game together, I'd find a new group.  If they enjoy the new games, I'd play both the old and new with them.  Heck, relationships are all about compromise, but not when they're dysfunctional.