No announcement yet.

Game Etiquette

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Game Etiquette

    I have a question. I am playing a game campaign for some time. My friend for a decade wanted to be the Game Master for a horror rpg for some time, and I accepted his invitation. Unfortunately, we seem to have reached an impasse because we seem to have very different ideas of fun. He ran a one shot adventure with me and another friend. My other friend was a very competitive game player when we played board games, and enjoyed creating and playing combat monsters. My GM friend gave us pre generated characters. My other friend picked the most combat worthy character, and I picked the second most combat worthy then we picked back up character if the first ones died. Most of my rpg career was playing elven rangers so I too have some desire to play in the hack and slash style, but I do not believe it was an obsession. My GM friend used mind's eye theater because he said maps with miniatures were unrealistic. My winning obsessed friend said he did not trust mind's eye theater because it gave the GM an unfair advantage in combat. In the end, we took our most combat worthy. We we in medium sized pleasure yacht that encountered a huge abandoned ship, that could be haunted by a dangerous monster. We player characters decided to explore the haunted ship with only our most combat worthy characters. When the GM said, why don't you bring the other characters as well. We said we did not believe the others had any reason to needlessly risk their lives. We went their to encounter an invisible monster, then left because we were in a no win scenario, and did not want to throw away our characters lives. As we returned to the original yacht, we found all of them were killed by the invisible monster. We did not feel fear, we felt annoyed. The engine was destroyed, and we believe that monster would return. We grabbed the life boat, tried to escape, encountered the monster, both failed our sanity rolls, then had a total party kill. My PC friend never returned again.

    My GM friend created a campaign which had six people join, and after three games I was the only who did not quit. Later, my GM friend created another campaign the included me and two others. We have played four sessions, but the last two were with just two other players. In the last battle, we were facing a fight against several skeleton who were immune to damage from my riffle. The only possible way to defeat them was with blunt force damage from a rock or the butt of my rifle. The damage was all or nothing, either no damage, which was likely, or total destruction, unlikely. At the start, I did try to attack with the butt of my rifle, getting vulnerable in melee range. One skeleton damaged me, and I hit one but rolled badly and it took no damage. My fellow player's dice were on fire and he destroyed one. I ran away for two rounds, so there should be 12 feet distance between me and the skeletons. I found another rock, and threw it. It hit and did no damage again. I believe the skeleton could not run up to me but my GM ruled they would have time to run up again and smack me. My fellow player destroyed the second skeleton on him.. I objected I did understand where the skeletons were. I wanted to run far enough so I could throw and not get in melee range before I had to run again. My GM got angry and said that was not the point of the game. The GM said I would have to run four rounds straight. So I did. The GM said, so you want to kite them then. The other player finished them off.

    I was playing his game just to prevent a collapse of GM's campaign. With the two of us it could limp along until he finished the first arc. It was not very fun earlier. I just wan to refuse to play a victim, someone who will use bad strategy so the GM can have a horror feel. I do not feel enjoyable fear, I feel frustration instead. He feels upset at me. Should I quit now, or try to talk to make it work out?

  • #2
    If you should quit or keep trying is only up to you. However, if the GM gets angry and says something isn't a point of a game, then I wouldn't put much hope into bridging any differences in play style (or improvement in how to handle a game, if it's just a matter of skill in GM'ing).

    For me, horror and comedy are the hardest genres to run, as they tend to require a slow buildup of a feeling. Of not everyone is on board of aiming for that feeling, it tend to easily crumble.

    Then, it also sounds like the GM had a specific chain of events he had in mind, which might have been a second clash in play style.

    A few questions to have in mind.
    * Do you feel the GM wants and trying to improve? If so, is the direction the GM wants to improve in a direction you are interested in?
    * Do you feel it would be worth sticking around if it would be better sometimes down the road?
    * What other gaming options do you have?
    * What is the best option of "bad gaming" and "no gaming"?

    "Bad gaming" might very well be the best game ever for someone else, but a clash in preferences.

    Personally, I'm quite picky with what I would game or not and would keep playing if I saw a sincere attempt to pull things into a direction I'm interested in. Not everyone is interested in what I'm interested in, so a "unfortunately, this isn't my cup of tea, so I'm going to bow out. Best of luck with the game;" would most likely be what I would have done.