D&D: New Rules, New Players, Same Old Problems

[canyonwalker]

Hawk and I have recently started branching out in D&D. We've both been playing the game for decades. In recent years, though, we've only played the long-term campaign I've been GMing. As the Coronavirus crisis has pushed roleplaying games mostly online— and online tools have gotten way better, necessity being the mother of invention— we've taken a new interest in trying other games and other groups. It's easier to solve the logistics of meeting new players & sitting down together when we're not limited by having to sit in the same room.

As we meet new players and try new games with them we find ourselves in old familiar territory. It recalls our experience from years ago, when we had just moved to this area and avidly sought new gaming groups. Sadly this familiar territory is not good territory. Back then we spent a solid year playing with various goofballs and jerks while trying enough people to find a set we truly enjoyed playing with. Today the game systems are new, the technology is new, and the players are new, but the human flaws we have to contend with are the same.

Recently we wrapped up a mini-campaign in D&D 5th Edition (not that the game system matters to this story). I had misgivings about the group from as early as our Session Zero. Three separate times I asked the GM a question about the setting, and Player 1— as I'll call him— interrupted to criticize my questions as unimportant or inappropriate. The GM did answer each of my questions but he did not admonish P1 to stop interrupting or to be more respectful.

It was evident there was going to be a challenging power dynamic in the group, where P1 considered himself the most important person in the room (hence the name "P1") and everybody else, including the GM, was content with his behavior. I knew I would have to either accept that or be ready to argue with him, repeatedly, to have fair say in the game. Frankly, I was on the edge of choosing to withdraw from the game at that point, during Session Zero. But, I figured, it's just a mini-campaign, 3-4 real sessions. I'd give it a chance to see how it goes.

There's a saying, "When someone shows you what kind of a person they are, believe them." Player 1's behavior as if he were the only important person in the game continued in subsequent adventuring sessions. Repeatedly he'd declare an action without consulting the rest of us. Worse, the GM supported his I'm-the-only-one-here attitude by allowing him to complete major solo actions before the rest of us could get a word in edgewise. It felt like P1 was playing an FPS and we were the AI bots supporting him.

I stuck with the game through all four sessions because... well, because it was only four sessions. I wanted to learn a new rules system and to practice being a player again after many years of only GMing. I decided I could put up with this guy's ego and casual disrespect for a short while.

The game wrapped recently, and there was discussion about what we could do next. The chat trailed off without a conclusion. That's fine with me; I doubt I'll want to play with that group again.

Comments

[lowbeyonder]

That can be really frustrating for sure. Were P1 and GM used to playing with each other? I've definitely been the newcomer to an established group with a "this player loves the spotlight, the rest of us are here for socializing and the stabby parts" vibe. Though your P1 sounds like they were a bit of an asshole even apart from any habit of being the only protagonist.

(I've also been that person, either on purpose because it seemed like otherwise things constantly bogged down in planning paralysis and indecision or inadvertently when that's just how the party shook out. Sometimes it's worked out, sometimes I've had GMs or other players tell me to cool my jets.)

[canyonwalker]

P1 and GM are housemates. I figured early on that familiarity was a big part of it. P1 knows what GM likes, and GM is accustomed to P1's style.

It went beyond mere familiarity, though, to clear favoritism. Whenever P1 did something unilateral he was rewarded with favorable results. For example, when we captured a petty crime boss we (the group) struck a bargain with him for his freedom. We got his magic items, an agreement to call off his gang from us (which we verified), and a promise not to cross us in the future. The negotiation was done. Then P1 adds, "Oh, and I want [thing you have worth 20,000 coin]." And the GM just gave it to him. To put this in perspective, our starting wealth (7th level characters) was 7,500 coin.

By contrast, whenever I did anything solo (there were parts of the adventure where we purposefully split up) I got nothing more than a roll of the dice against a stingy results table. High roll? I got a scrap of information. Low roll? Nothing— or worse, my attempt backfires and I lose something.

[canyonwalker]

Planning paralysis is something that Player 1 brought up in our Session Zero. On the subject of playing style, he informed us that he hates groups that sit and dither, and prefers to see the action keep moving. I agreed aloud with him, though I deliberately reframed the issue as striking a balance. Lengthy debate about what to do next anytime there are risks or unknowns really drains the fun out of the game. (I know because my LT group tends to do this.) But it also drains the fun out of a game when a "Ready, Fire, Aim" approach to action means Bad Things Happen that we could have avoided with rudimentary planning.

P1 acknowledged what I said, which I took as a good sign in the moment. I realized later, though, that he wasn't actually discussing play style; he was simply disclosing what he was going to do. And unfortunately what P1 meant by not wanting to "dither" was actually, "I'm not even going to attempt to discuss with the other players what we should do in the face of a shared challenge."

Worse, as I mentioned previously, the GM catered to P1's habit of acting like the only protagonist in the story by adjudicating his actions before the rest of us even got a chance to speak. I was prepared after the first play session to admonish the GM about the need to a) enforce turn taking and b) ensure that every player is given the opportunity to contribute before a situation is resolved. The second play session was better, though not totally.

"Okay, maybe the GM just likes bold action," I said to myself. So I tried acting more boldly in subsequent sessions. And that's where the GM's favoritism became clear. P1's hasty, unilateral actions were rewarded with positive outcomes. Every. Single. Time. Whenever I did something I got luck of the dice. ...And the bolder my action, the tougher the roll for success became.

[lowbeyonder]

Yeah the blatant favoritism in outcomes is definitely way over the line.