I've been DMing a D&D 4e campaign for 2 or 3 months, playing twice weekly. It started off a little rough, but after I shrank the group size to 4 players it went extremely well for a long time- the players would phone me every few days to try and arrange another game, and the games would last up to 10 hours long. If I had to describe how the gameplay went, it was quite gamist with numerous aborted narrativist and simulationist elements that the players (powergamers, used to MMORPGs) were bored by. I realized this might be the case before the campaign even started, and prepared for it- as i said, the campaign went really well for a while.

This is my first post here; I'm immensely impressed by this website thus far. I never imagined such a place existed...

Over the last month, however, I've completely lost interest in running the campaign, and instead of playing 2-3 times a week, I've avoided hosting a game for 2 weeks :( I have to remedy this!

I've been reading the articles here, and I think I'm having a GNS incompatibility issue- in RPGs, I like playing Narrativist-style games with a consistent, realistic-ish world, and a karma resolution system with a bit of luck- maybe a d6 instead of a d20. 4e isn't really suitable for this- the mechanics don't lend themselves to realism or plausibility in the slightest, and this has destroyed immersion for me 200%...

(- the fighter COMBAT CHALLENGES a swarm of mindless spiders, and the rules support it; he's tapped into their primal competitiveness or something... and the avenger swears oaths of enmity against unknown strangers he finds sleeping in the dark, in the wilderness. What's he avenging, exactly??!)

... The skill system leads to some weird results sometimes, but that's a minor complaint, as it works okay in a gamist context at least... It has never worked in a way that satisfies me outside of that context, looking back. The game, and the players, are intensely gamist, which i think is the main thing: I get pretty bored after a few games of it, but all my experiments (about 1/2 of games, making sure to keep a good ratio of what works) have almost completely failed to capture player interest- except for the bard, who does bite, but then everyone else at the table is catatonically bored (though the bard raves about how happy she was about how things went).

I think the way to make the group happy is to play it  80% gamist, but include narrativist elements for the bard once or twice a month, making the other suffer through the tangents for her sake... but I have no motivation whatsoever. I don't know what to do. I need something prepped for Tuesday, but I'm tempted to try getting someone else to DM, or running a premade module while hoping it inspires me somehow. I would switch systems, try to switch to a more narrativist mode, but the thing is: they love 4e. they spend their free time studying feats and powers and using the character builder; they talk about it constantly in their free time.

Are you looking for advice?

I was in a similar situation earlier this decade - my solution was pretty much to learn to enjoy the game that others wanted to play, while also starting new, different games for my other interests. Later on I moved to another town and have been playing all sorts of games with different people. So I guess my advice is to not try to subvert of fix 4th edition D&D that your group is enjoying; better to start new games or work on enjoying the game yourself.

For that latter point, why aren't you enjoying 4th edition? It seems a pretty slick rules-set to me, as long as you're satisfied with a complex skirmish game. I know that this is easy to say when I can get the sort of gaming I want whenever I want, but to me it seems very worthwhile to patiently learn to enjoy many different types of games. You could start another game with different people while also developing your play of D&D with an eye towards making it shine in what it is good at. Or if you're utterly disinterested in the game D&D is, then playing it at all seems counterproductive to having a good time.

Over the last month, however, I've completely lost interest in running the campaign, and instead of playing 2-3 times a week, I've avoided hosting a game for 2 weeks :( I have to remedy this!

Hi Azalin,

Well, drawing on my own history, their playing to win doesn't really provide any imaginative material. This may be your problem. Like they kill all the monsters in the dungeon - does that really provide any further imaginative material? Something that inspires new idea? Not really, it really just subtracts from the pool of inspirational material.

The second thing is - well, you know the computer game 'Half life' and how it was written using the 'source' engine? Half life is a game, the source engine is not a game. The thing with any edition of D&D is that it is not a game. It is best described as an engine. You don't play 4E. No one can - you can't play it as much as you can't play the source engine. I highlight this because it's twice as creatively draining if your acting like your playing 4E, when your really creating a game, then playing that game (often creating game during the session itself, on the fly). It's twice as draining because you can't just keep playing until an inspiration hits you, you have to create or you can't play at all. Mind you I've had an ugly arguement about D&D not being a game on another forum, so this may be a controversial suggestion (though I do hope the idea that 'half life is a game, the source engine is not a game' is non controversial)

In terms of running a predominantly gamist game, it may be the lack of new, inspirational imaginative materials being provided, that's the problem (rather than needing a bit of narrativism on the side to prop you up). And I mean specifically from the activity itself. It's not just a matter of going and drawing from other sources for inspiration - the problem is, inspiration goes into this activity, but none comes out again. It's like a money pit. Well, an inspiration pit. Your lack of motivation might originate from the activity being like this.

Callan, I'd say the better analogy is that someone gave you half life's game mechanics without any levels, and you have to build the whole of half life while playing it.

AzaLin, I agree your problem is basically that the game is not providing what you want, but other people love what you produce. I have a word for that situation; it's called work! If you continue serving your friends in this way it may be lovely, but the danger might be that they do not realise how little you are interested in the stuff they are doing. I might say something along the lines of "Guys, at the moment the only thing I enjoy about this game is that you like it! I can't keep this up at this frequency unless we change something."

Now what could that change be? Firstly you need to be getting something back for your effort or you're being a slave just for your love of your friends! Now it may be that you limit the game to the quantity that does interest you, or they could start paying you.

I'm half joking with the last one, because I don't think it has to be actual money, although it seriously could be. What is needed is some way for gamist players to create narrative content for you, that you vibe off of, pretty much as a service to you. Now this is a hard ask, and the system may actually need to be changed to support it; if powers rub you up the wrong way, their going to keep doing that regardless of whatever effort they put in. On the other hand, if you object to their use in certain situations, such as against mindless foes with which they have no history, then cut those out of your campaign!

If you can master merging your different interests to produce a sustainable game, then you will have made quite a forward step for RPG design, if not, don't worry, many others have had the same problem you recognise, and a frequent solution is just to split the group.

What kind of things does the Bard player like? Do some of the players that dropped out share your interest in proper narrative stuff? And when I say that, I'm concious that a lot of the details you mentioned so far sound more like sim than some of the joint narration, "dealing with issues" stuff that people might suggest.

I'm just going to focus on one small aspect of the OP here, and that is the conflict between a preference for hack&slash and one for role-playing.

Obviously, too much difference can be a deal breaker, but the degree to which that difference is a problem can itself be a variable. I would add that people's preferences often shift around a lot, depending on the campaign, the GM, etc. I know at least one GM in my area whose role playing scenarios make me grit my teeth and long for simple combat. I know of others that almost make me forget combat and just enjoy the social challenges. The thing is, to these GMs, it may well seem like I am a gamist in the one campaign and a narrativist in the other. In fact, I am at least partly responding to the strengths and weaknesses of the GMs. Now add players and a host of other variables, and personal growth, etc. the idea that I or anyone else can be quickly and decisively categorized by our preferences becomes more than a little suspicious.

But that's more abstract than I really meant to be. Just taking the preferences of your players as you state them, I would say do what you can do to have your cake and let them eat it to. You can start by designing role-playing challenges around tactical objectives. The same player who balks at romance or political intrigue may well enjoy a few brief talking encounters if he sees clearly how they contribute to the battle.

So, one thing I would consider doing is giving them a tactical challenge they cannot handle on their own. Then let them talk to a few people to solve some of the objectives leading up to the fight. I don't mean getting NPC help on the field (I rarely want to go there), but I mean things like. Perhaps, they will only win if the city draw-bridge is up (or a particular dungeon corridor has been closed off). What if a potential ally of the enemies could be persuaded to stay out of it. You just have to give him a reason before the battle actually occurs.If the players who love combat so much KNOW, with absolute certainty, that part of what they hope to do in the next combat depends on role-playing the conversation right in THIS encounter, then (hopefully) it should be part and parcel of the game they want to play. The idea here is to keep the roleplaying close to the primary concern of the players (combat, if I understand you correctly), so that it is more vivid to them. As a side-benefit, the list of allies will grow in time and more complex role-playing options may flow out of this. You can take it further if the players are interested, or keep it light if you like.

Conversely, role playing challenges can be designed to play out in the combat scenario. Objectives other than killing all the bad guys can be fun. Let the characters protect a prisoner, fight someone they cannot kill outright for political reasons, or even face a foe that should have been an ally. (One of the wonderful things in the Mahabharata is the fact that the two most bad-ass warriors in all the world are both noble and good, and both absolutely committed by their own sense of honor to fight on the bad guy's side in the final battle. They really want the heroes to win, but neither can go back on their word to the principle villain. Makes for good in-combat drama.) Let your players fight someone like that and you get a thicker plot in the battle itself. (Maybe there is a good monster. Let him help the party once, and let the players talk to him and establish him as an ally. Then in a later session give the players reason to go through a door he has sworn to protect. They can even talk first, but their objectives are irreconcilable...)

Anyway, point being, if the players want combat and you want role-playing, then you can try shaping the role-playing challenges as closely the prospects of fighting as possible. If that doesn't work, then perhaps you do have irreconcilable preferences, but it might be the trick to keep you both happy. Maybe you're already doing that, I dunno It's just what comes to mind at reading the OP.

Thanks for taking the time to reply everyone! I'll do my best to respond...

So I guess my advice is to not try to subvert of fix 4th edition D&D that your group is enjoying; better to start new games or work on enjoying the game yourself.

Do some of the players that dropped out share your interest in proper narrative stuff?

My suggestion would be to cut back the frequency of your 4e sessions, as well as the time you play per session.

The thing with any  edition of D&D is that it is not a game. It is best described as an engine.

the problem is, inspiration goes into this activity, but none comes out again. It's like a money pit.

On the other hand, if you object to their use in certain situations, such as against mindless foes with which they have no history, then cut those out of your campaign!

I'm conscious that a lot of the details you mentioned so far sound more like sim than some of the joint narration, "dealing with issues" stuff that people might suggest.

You can start by designing role-playing challenges around tactical objectives. The same player who balks at romance or political intrigue may well enjoy a few brief talking encounters if he sees clearly how they contribute to the battle.

Conversely, role playing challenges can be designed to play out in the combat scenario. Objectives other than killing all the bad guys can be fun. Let the characters protect a prisoner, fight someone they cannot kill outright for political reasons, or even face a foe that should have been an ally.

What if a potential ally of the enemies could be persuaded to stay out of it.

and, a different reply:

For that latter point, why aren't you enjoying 4th edition?

AzaLiN wrote: I fail, it will be Exalted (whitewolf), which I'm worried will a bit of a trap, DMing a simulationist game/setting that I know nothing about with veterans who know everything about it.

Hi again, Azalin,

Just a quick add, I think what you call setting/game, I would just call setting. There isn't game there, in the way I'm using the word "game" and probably the way your players would use the word "game". So what they are looking for, there isn't any, really, as noted before. Which adds more creative drain as you can't just play till an inspiration comes upon you, you have to invent game straight away. But I've said all that already :)

Also, atleast from RPG.net, I've heard exalted is incredibly gamist. Or atleast "I stack this powa onto dis powa and also get DIS powa!". I'm not sure it'll be any sort of change from 4E.

AJ_Flowers wrote:

AzaLiN wrote: I fail, it will be Exalted (whitewolf), which I'm worried will a bit of a trap, DMing a simulationist game/setting that I know nothing about with veterans who know everything about it.

You know, hopefully not off-topic, but it's funny because I just got into this conversation last night. I'm interested in running something for a few of my friends and they seem skeptical about indy, and are really in to Exalted. The problem is that I have played it just a few times, as opposed to people who are... really IN to Exalted.  So I'm wondering how this would go.

I've had experiences running D&D that was not to my liking. Personally, I'm a big fan of simulation/exploration, whereas my players are hardcore gamists. Now I enjoy me some asskicking, and I have and do run quite a fair bit of it, but there's only so much you can take you know?

What I've tried to do in the past is make a setting (or in your case if you prefer a story) sort of ahead of time- know the major players, what might happen if no one interferes, etc. Then let the PCs loose. I've found it can be fun for a good bit to watch who they kill, who they team up with, and what they blow up.

That being said, 4e might not be for you. You might consider trying out other games for a bit.

Just a thought.

I wonder whether you'd want to do a mix of exalted and "weapons of the gods". Partially because I like that games approach to stunts more; basically difficulty classes for stunts and for tasks don't stack, so you won't be randomly stunting around your kitchen for cooking bonuses, or something equivalently mundane, but the moment you get into a situation that can challenge you, the stunts come out! It also has a build-up feature in a fight that naturally makes them more epic as time goes on. Very smooth!

It also has a nice way of choosing what background to keep track of, as people can buy sections of "lore" they want to turn up in the game. This means that your players would be able to grab their favourite elements of the backstory and go "A game about this please!" Looking at it though the transition load is impressive, and it still doesn't really cover keeping track of the effects of your powerful people on the surrounding politics, so you might be more interested in this: http://tricktonic.com/ORExalted/ I know I was!

That being said, 4e might not be for you. You might consider trying out other games for a bit.

Alright, I tried to transition the game a little this last game, make it meld a little more into the gamist/narrativist mishmash I'm going for... oh god, the rogue decided to assassinate/rob the royal envoy and go hiding in the woods, joining the enemy forces while the other characters got arrested. I can only foresee 2 outcomes, and one is lame:

1)the rogue and the party become enemies by circumstance, and play goes back and forth until one group is destroyed. That's not bad- a GoOD story actually, especially since neither group really WANTS to fight eachother, its all factional. However, 1-3 PC deaths: I hesitate, because I regret the Ranger's death several weeks ago *

* though he couldn't have possibly done more to deserve it, he didn't really get 3 strikes either. His death was merciless, but in retrospect, he probably wouldn't have made the same mistake again if it had been a close call instead. Still: he murdered another PC, ate him, then tried to impersonate him after the party just finished fighting doppelgangers...

2) the rogue (different player than the ranger, actually) is forgiven because he successfully backstabs the Orcs in the forest, as he apparently plans to. In a novel or a movie, this would be what I consider a lame ending for a conflict.

3) the rogue is forgiven for some other reason? eh?

In the end, it will depend a lot on the PCs choices, but again, I do have a ton of influence as well. The biggest challenge will be letting the rest of the party get out of jail in a satisfying way.

Not that there isn't a golden rule and all that, but given it's a group activity that typically means compromise of some sort, or staying within certain rules (and the rules themselves manage the compromise). You sound like if it's a lame end to the conflict in your opinion, it doesn't matter if other people like or are okay with it? Same with whether a jail escape is satisfying. I think I've read you right, your undercutting your own goal of doing stuff as a group?

AzaLin:

How about if the orcs, running low on food, decide to turn on the rogue (an outsider, not part of the clan), butcher him and eat him?  This will give you a chance to enjoy 4E's complex skirmish rules, as well as provide a valuable lesson to the rogue about the importance of team work.  I'd suggest allowing the other players to run the individual orcs in the combat rather than run it as a "side encounter" for just the rogue's player.  This gives your players the opportunity to "step on up" and exercise their gamist creative agenda, while you address the premise "How much loot does it take to shift one's loyalties?"

AzaLin wrote:

Quote

That being said, 4e might not be for you. You might consider trying out other games for a bit.

Don't really have that option right now

Callan's right about directing things towards one or another outcome: its just that the rogue's caused a lot of problems and the only reason anybody wants to give him a hand getting out of it is because he's everyone's friend in real life. He nearly cost one character his beloved fief... they're not pleased with him. The players will have huge latitude in deciding what happens.

Landon, my players love 4e; it would take 2 months or more of [minor, passive-aggressive] bitching from them before a switch to another system could even start to show them what it could do. I don't think I'm exaggerating... They really like 4e. Your rogue-slap-eat plan is attractive though as a story element.
================================================================

I haven't really enjoyed the last 5 or 6 sessions; on the Ars Ludi blog, Ben Robbins says that when a game goes badly, and the GM doesn't want to play anymore, it's usually the players' faults- but I'm not sure of that. That sounds like a cheat. I definitely am avoiding playing though. I'm tempted to cancel the game, but I shouldn't be. I don't even want to play a different RPG with them, even with a different GM, but I'm not sure whats burning me out so much.

Thanks for following this thread so far btw.

The games that went extremely well were combat heavy, dungeons, a trial by ordeal, a dragon hunt in a rioting city, a looting contest against gypsies in a ruined town with an underground complex... those were fun! But to run another similar scenario to those would kill me by boredom. There have been one or two other good ones since, one being the intro adventure to Lejendary Adventures by Gygax- a fake werewolf, an illusionary bear, drugs, negotiating with trolls and ogres, figuring out how to raid the stronghold, making peace with the townsfolk... that was pretty good, 2 players really liked it, but the other two were openly and extremely hostile to the scenario, so much that it ruined the fun for me (luckily not for the other 2 players, I think it was Bard's favorite by far).

The lousy sessions were roleplaying ones that the players didn't bite into, games that were fight-light, one that involved introducing some important NPCs for later (rogue got bored: poisoned them all, got party exiled. this was back near the start), outdoor exploring, anything plot/setting-centric (plot&setting apparently needs to be the sideline), anything sandbox-ish, dungeons without scaled encounters (partly a ruleset problem), and anything with more combatants than about 4 per side (4e rules make this painful); what else? linear dungeons of course are no good, but I only ran one of those; enemies who behave more intelligently than goblins cause stress, so regretfully I've been using dumber foes in response; games where I provide little direction, the rogue takes over, and while entertaining, he steals 80% of the show and everybody gets bored until something happens (a bang, I suppose you could say) to interrupt it- these games are a bit of a blur, but mostly involve him contracting a whore house in the fighter's fiefdom- come to think of it, they were really draining for some reason, gamist sessions with one player, one referee and 3 spectators;

I'm just throwing it out, cause I really don't want to play anymore, but I would really prefer to keep going and get my enthusiasm back.

PS: I think my gaming preferences, as I read more, are strong Sim competing with Narrativist, (agreed: the two approaches definitely butt heads at times) if that helps (I didn't realize at first that Sim applied to me ^^). I don't know.

In keeping with the other thread on stat-blocks and challenging players, I think that another issue is that most encounters/situations are stat-block determined- the players build great characters for it, and are tactically competent- but actually playing it out feels redundant and drawn out: either it's possible for them to win, and they do; or the enemy is simply too strong, and they, somewhat fairly, cry foul, and in either case, actually fighting it out/rolling the skill checks are just drawn out confirmations. A ruleset issue, but just thought I'd add it.

Crying foul because they can't win a head-on encounter isn't legit, it's Munchkinism at it's worst.  The trick is to present them with an encounter they can't win, but must win to complete some objective that they care about. They must be provided with an alternative method to bypass that head-on encounter.

For example, they have been paid good money to rescue the princess who is being held by a heavily armed band of bandits (or maybe not a princess, but a by-blow who is beloved of the king, just to avoid the cliche). The bandits are sufficiently well armed and attentive that the party wouldn't stand a chance in a direct assault.

But the PCs could be presented with one or more alternatives that will change the advantage. There could be a cattle or deer herd in the area that could be stampeded through the bandit camp. A decoy caravan looking like a wealthy merchant could be arranged that will draw off a sufficient number of bandits that the remaining party can effect their rescue.

AzaLin:

Wow, man, that sounds...atrocious.  I'm trying to think of something positive and constructive to give you.  I'm not sure "blaming the players" is useful (or even an accurate analysis of the issue).  More accurate might be that there is a difference in creative agenda between you and some of the players...but realizing there's a difference doesn't fix the difficulty.

If you're determined to stick with a ruleset...well, I guess I'd want to start looking at how and what it facilitates that IS fun for you, rather than griping about how it fails you.  I know "griping" carries a negative connotation, but so does complaining, bitching, whining, etc..  I'm just saying...um, focus on the silver lining (if you can find one). 

There are definitely strategies (read "force") that you can exercise as a DM over your malcontent players...but that just leads to a downward spiral of more and more dysfunctional play.  The more mature stance to take (if I may be so bold), is state what your priorities are, be honest...and let the chips fall where they may.

Back in college I was asked to run a Werewolf game for some friends. With some discussion, I found out they wanted to play a real wa-hoo, shoot 'em up action game..."a video game with werewolves" I think was the description. I declined to run the game, even though they were friends (non-gaming friends actually) and I was interested in introducing them to the hobby...but at the time I was kind of bored with simplistic, action-oriented RPGs, and I didn't feel like putting in the time and effort to run a TYPE of game like that (I was more interested in running a simplistic VTM-goth game, but I digress...). I think they still ended up playing WW (later they also started a pretty heavy Rifts game, I believe), while I walked away.  We still did other things together (partying, playing music, etc.) but gaming wasn't one of those things.

But the PCs could be presented with one or more alternatives that will change the advantage. There could be a cattle or deer herd in the area that could be stampeded through the bandit camp.