I dont think I am going to play D&D again.

[Albions_Angel]

Hi all,

I am not sure what I am looking for here. Sympathy maybe? Im just pretty down right now.

I started playing D&D about 7 years ago, with a dedicated group at Uni. It was 3.5, and we would meet up on a Sunday at 2 pm and play for 8 hours. It was fantastic and I fell in love with the game. For 3 years I lived and breathed D&D. I think it helped that we wernt friends outside of our sessions? Maybe? We would turn up, take 15 minutes to set things going, and then just play. No beer, no bowls of crisps cluttering the board, no distractions. We were there to play the game.

During that time, I also tried 5th ed with both that group, and another group. I was not a fan. I didnt like how loose it felt. I also didnt like the second group, which met for a shorter time (which wasnt much of an issue on its own), and used it as an excuse to chat and catch up and drink. The game was rule of cool, very rules optional, and nothing ever happened of any substance in the story. Nothing wrong with that, just not for me. About this time, I embarked on my project to create a massive, cohesive, immersive world in 3.5, comparable with pathfinder. I now have books of lore, histories of monarchies, hierarchies of magic and might.

I moved away, started my postgrad. Found out a bunch of people here like D&D. I have since then tried to set up 3 new groups (all at different times, I am not a mad man). These groups were: Close friends at work, a group from the university gaming society, people from a meetup group who attend a local gaming centre.

Knowing the importance of session 0, I have been open with how I would like things to go, and invited people to say what they want, so we can find a compromise. In every case, I get groups nodding, saying they would love something more focused. All 3 games made it to session 3, then fell apart. Those games were 2 in 3.5, and 1 in 5e. 2 in my world, 1 in a "throw away", less in depth world (I had begun to realise that my love for my main world might be a problem for new groups. I tried to create a scenario I wouldnt mind people ******* about in. I failed.) In all cases, I called a halt after each session took longer and longer to start. These sessions were 2-4 hours long, and by session 3, we actually only played about 30 min in each game. The groups were inexperienced, and apparently, so am I. I began to become disillusioned.

In the case of the work people, I think they were humoring me, and were mildly interested in the system. We were simply not compatible with how we wanted to play, and they didnt understand that session 0 isnt me dictating what I want to happen, its me saying what I would prefer, them saying what they would prefer, and then a compromise. Lessons learned. I messed up. Mea Culpa. This was in 5th.

The group from the Uni gaming soc did better. Not knowing each other, there was less incentive for them to catch up rather than play. And they all responded to an advert, and wernt just humoring me. But they found the system (3.5) hard to learn, even with me helping. In the end, while they liked the fluff of the world and their characters, I ended up essentially playing for each of them, especially during combat, as they asked questions. Maybe I expected too much. Again. TIFU.

The last group, the meetup group, was earlier this year. And it was an unmitigated disaster. I spent months making sure everything would be ready. I had new tricks, new ways of helping out they were more hands off, and I had physical copies of the books. That I earmarked at important pages. I could encourage them to look things up. I planned for shorter sessions. I started off with a series of shorter scenarios, designed to be finished in 2 or 3 hours rather than a grand plot. Session 0 went well, we talked setting, we talked expectations, we talked house rules and table rules. We compromised. One example stands out. I raised the point that I am not a fan of drink at the table. I do drink, but now when I am gaming. Too many times I have seen even one drink ruin a game. They wanted to drink, but appreciated my concerns. So a 1 glass limit was set up. 1 glass at the table. Anyone see the loophole? Yup. 5 people, all older than me (I am 25), predrank. That was one of several OOC problems. IC problems included literally all the characters being drunk too. Even though I put a hard rule down of "drinking happens off screen". I called it after 2 of the players drunkenly got in a fight about an old relationship they had.

During all this, there was one beacon of hope. My girlfriend, who I met and started dating early in my postgrad, initially lived with a group of 3 others, and had a couple more people, who all loved roleplaying and board gaming. Regular, weekly D&D sessions, via Roll20. Multiple games, multiple times a week. The sessions were shorter than I liked (2 hours), and not in person, but I could play. They certainly talked about D&D the way I did. Builds, strategies, grand stories, and very little "shocking grasp up the wyverns butt-hole". So I tried. And I tried. My main issue was pacing. Games that should have taken weeks or months took years. I would drop in and hate it after a few sessions, then die (unintentionally) and drop out. So I tried running. One shots that became 2 shots because my expectations of pacing were off. I tried in 5th (their preferred system) about 7 times, playing most of those, but running 2 one-shots. They would have fun, but I would secretly come away frustrated. I then gave a one shot of pathfinder, which went well, except one of the driving forces in the group tried a cleric, didnt actually read her class, didnt know about domains, and got angry at stuff. We all admitted there was a lack of communication there (I focused on others because she was positive she could read the class and build a character - I trusted her, I trusted all of them, but mistakes happen, and I should have checked). But I still left frustrated with pacing, and the lack of engagement in the world. And then it hit me. Of course they wernt going to be engaged when they knew it was a one-shot. But by now they had figured out I wasnt amazingly happy.

So I havnt played D&D with them in over a year. Frankly, I havnt really played D&D since my undergrad and its slowly killing me. Meanwhile, my GFs group are becoming bored with 5th. They started in 4th, and have played out most of the 5e content by now. They started to diversify. We all tried a single session of WFRP 4th ed (with me as a player), and I fell in love. Within a week, I had a campaign planned, though at the time I didnt say anything. They also started a starfinder game. Now there has been a standing edict in the group. "If we ever play 3.P, ask Albion if he wants go join". Only, they didnt. They asked my girlfriend, who doesnt like anything other than 5th, but not me. And I was in the room. Well, they knew her first, and they did have a lot of players, so... I am good at lying to myself. They also have only 2 of them that DM, and both are getting tired of it. So a couple months ago, I floated the idea of me running a WFRP game on Roll20, in 2 hour sessions, with relaxed play. I would be good. I would laugh with them. I wouldnt get frustrated. I was met with resounding silence.

Meanwhile, I am getting really upset with not playing anything. So I made a 5e game. One I dont care about the world for. A throw away, multi session, hack and slash, pirate adventure. I kept quiet about it. I didnt want the disappointment. Well, last night, my GFs game fell apart after an early (session 5) TPK. Rather than continue, they wanted a new game. My GF plays via skype, with headphones on, and you cant see me in camera shot. She floated the idea of me running. She knew I wanted to. I left the room. I didnt want to hear. She came in a few minutes later after signing off. No.

I know I am the common factor. I know the issue is me. But I cant even show to them that I want to change. They really arnt *******s. They tried. I failed them.

Now I am evaluating things. I dont think the games I want to play exist any more. And I dont want to learn a new way to play just for some random group of people on the internet. And I just upset my friends. I think thats it for me. Opportunities for me joining in person games at gaming shops are limited (the UK doesnt have a lot outside of a couple of major cities), and setting up games to be filled by randoms is too swingy. Maybe RP just isnt for me.

Still hurts though.

[Firest Kathon]

Oh man, lots of bad experiences there. For what it's worth, I don't see any failure on your side. What I do see is a mismatch of gaming styles, which usually sucks.

I think you identified the issues with the work group (curious, but not really deeply interested in the system) and the meetup group (drinking when you explicitly agreed on not drinking, bunch of a******s). With the uni gaming group, I think it's kind of hard to get started into 3.5 with a group of beginners to role-playing games and only one experienced person who also GMs. My experience is that you should have at least one experienced person on the player side, so that the GM can focus on the GMing part and keeping the game going.

Now the group of your girlfriend, I think there is a style mismatch here that you don't see. What you seem to like, from your description, is a fast-paced game, which I assume means a fairly fast progress through the story. On the other hand, you are presenting your gaming world, in which you have invested a lot of work and are understandably proud of. And that is where the mismatch comes in: On your side, you want to

1. present the stories you have invented, and go through them at the expected pace. When you plan, you think "this story ark will take just one session, they will talk with person X, travel to location Y and collect trinket Z".
2. show off all the work you put into your world - don't get me wrong here, this is not meant as a criticisim, but merely the completely human desire to show what you've done, and collect praise for it, whether conciously or subconciously

On the other side, they are presented with this whole new world which they want to explore. They see the work you put in there. They know that you have thought of a lot of details, so they want to find them. When talking to person X, that NPC might mention some small information which for you is unimportant, but for them might be curious and they might want to find out more. On the way to location Y, they might come by an old tower and decide to investigate is, and since you have created a detailed world they will actually find some historical stories connected to that tower. Once they arrive in location Y, they might want to interact with the townfolk before collecting the trinket, or it might even not be obvious to them that the pickup is just plain and simple - I have GMed many adventures in which the PCs devised some elaborate plans to get something, when simply going to the person and asking for it would have been successful.

I'm not sure if I can give you any advice here. In my experience those role-player groups which are interested in the story will mostly result in a slower pace. In one of my groups, we have been traveling to the next town over for three real-life years so far (granted, we only play about once per month). But we're still enjoying the game. I have rarely had a group complete a quest in the planned real-life time, but usually this is the result of extended role-playing encounters, which I consider the best part of the game. The fast-paced gaming style I have had mostly in organized gaming groups, where the focus is mostly on completing the adventure, often driven by the fact that we were playing in a gaming shop which would close eventually. I assume you know Pathfinder Society and the 5e Adventurer League, if not you might want to look for local or online games there.

On the home games, you may want to try to change your expectations on the pace. You could play in a more sandboxy style, not planning out the complete story before. Set in motion some slow-paced background events (bandits gathering strength, old lich breaking out of it's sealed grave, ...), give them some adventure hooks, and see what they will be up to. Let them explore your world and take pride in their interest. I hope you will find your game, I would hate for someone as passionate about this hobby as you are to give up on it.

[Shocksrivers]

I just wanted to share my sympathies (is that a phrase in English?). It is tough if you have a mismatch with your group(s). I hope you find some way of filling the D&D-itch in your life. Maybe just look at a completely different type of game, or make your world into a novel, I don't know, but I do know the feeling of being left frustrated by a gaming experience, and it isn't a good feeling

[King of Nowhere]

Ultimately, like all social activities, d&d requires compromise.
You got lucky on your first group, and that set up high expectations from you. And after you tried that, you can't settle for something lesser.
You can compromise your expectations. You can change groups until you find one you like. You can give up on playing. All are legitimate choices. The important part is making those choices with eyes wide open.

Personally i think your gf group may be a good one, you'd have to compromise somewhat.
The other groups were clear mismatch

[King of Nowhere]

by the way, you put so much emphasis on "session zero", but session zero is actually a concept of very experienced players deciding how to fine-tune the game.
casual players take no real benefits from a session zero, because they lack the knowledge to understand what is being discussed in it, or its practical implications. they will nod and agree, because they don't even know that they should know more stuff. with a group of newbies you have to break them in with your style, and then the next session you may say "ok, this time we'll do things a bit different". and this time it will be meaningful because they will have some comparison

[exelsisxax]

Good gaming groups don't spontaneously form. They are either legacies of long friendships already proven, or a process of selection, filtering, testing, gaming, and then reevaluating.

With new people, they can't really provide actionable information to help you filter them out. But play a few one-shots and they should reveal enough. But don't just keep doing one-shots if you don't want to. After you find a core group that you can actually enjoy the game with, do a module to test them further. Then campaigns. You don't need to do the same thing over and over.

To prevent low-participation, tell prospective players that you will not consider any player until they submit to you a complete character sheet. If they can't be bothered to learn the rules, you shouldn't bother playing with them. No more 'nod and say sure' no-shows if you do that.

[Darg]

Sympathies. With the socialite groups I find it helps to set up a pot luck prior to the session which helps get the socializing out of the way prior. Either way, my groups tend to have about an hour buffer set up for the social people to catch up and the more introverted players can show up closer to play time.

As another poster pointed out, from your words it is a case of expectations not being met. We put high value on our first experience with something and tend to compare everything with that as a baseline. Part of the fun of being inexperienced is the little bits you learn as you go and a lot of people like to learn as they play rather than reading books. Many groups I have been apart of with new players like to do some puzzlers for the first 2-3 sessions so that the group can learn interactions and general mechanics while also giving meetup time to work through character creation and personality. Session 1 will never be smooth with inexperienced players and I find that starting the adventure with several less involved ones with a couple hidden short side stories with clear endings help them visualize an open world. Including a timed adventure after they get their feet on the ground helps to teach them that there can be consequences if they fail to complete it.

[Peat]

Dude, that sucks. And I can sympathise a fair bit. My first face to face group rocked. We were invested, we were smart, we got each other's humour. The other ones were... okay. Tried online gaming, never works out.

All I can say is don't give up entirely. Sure, understand you'll have to change for some groups, and that a lot of groups won't work out, but always keep throwing you line out there with expectations low and a hopeful heart.

[martixy]

Blimey. My sympathies as well. More so because I know how hard it is to find that special gaming group. I can share similar stories.

In my circle of friends, very few people would consider playing the game I want to play. Most of them flat-out refuse to play 3.5e, and many are incompatible with the style of game I want to run.

Good gaming groups don't spontaneously form. They are either legacies of long friendships already proven, or a process of selection, filtering, testing, gaming, and then reevaluating.

This.

My experiences has time and again demonstrated this truth.

You have to keep looking...

Though one of my players just dropped out and you sound like we could be drift RP compatible...

[Droid Tony]

Good gaming groups don't spontaneously form. They are either legacies of long friendships already proven, or a process of selection, filtering, testing, gaming, and then reevaluating.

The above is very true.

There is only the hard way: Run as many one shot simple games as you can, and join as many such games as you can. Watch everyone in the game. Then pick out people you like and agree with you on most things. Then form a like minded group. Once you have a group, be very picky about new folks and don't be afraid to bump people.

It takes a huge amount of time an work.....but it's worth it.

[DarkOne-Rob]

OP - have you considered trying to play-by-post (PbP) on the forums?

My brothers and I live quite far apart, but continue to play regularly that way. It isn't quite the same as the old table-top experience, but it does help to scratch the itch for me.

If you want more details, feel free to PM me - I can try to link you into our group if you are willing to give it a try.

[Quertus]

by the way, you put so much emphasis on "session zero", but session zero is actually a concept of very experienced players deciding how to fine-tune the game.
casual players take no real benefits from a session zero, because they lack the knowledge to understand what is being discussed in it, or its practical implications. they will nod and agree, because they don't even know that they should know more stuff. with a group of newbies you have to break them in with your style, and then the next session you may say "ok, this time we'll do things a bit different". and this time it will be meaningful because they will have some comparison

Good gaming groups don't spontaneously form. They are either legacies of long friendships already proven, or a process of selection, filtering, testing, gaming, and then reevaluating.

With new people, they can't really provide actionable information to help you filter them out. But play a few one-shots and they should reveal enough. But don't just keep doing one-shots if you don't want to. After you find a core group that you can actually enjoy the game with, do a module to test them further. Then campaigns. You don't need to do the same thing over and over.

"Everyone" is quoting this one paragraph about "good groups don't just spontaneously form", and for good reason. But it's only mostly right. Rather, you should expect that getting a good group will take work.

"Session 0" is, indeed, an "advanced concept", in that it takes skill to communicate successfully in one. The best "group of strangers" variant I've seen is the "series of one-shots". Everyone runs different characters, and the GM runs styles of games, for everyone to show their range. Then the group can talk intelligently - with examples - about what they liked, and make informed decisions about what kind of games & what kinds of characters might produce a fun experience.

Once you've got a group with enough skills & enough shared experiences, you can try with just a "session 0".

[aerilon]

On the one hand, I can sympathize. My first group, back in the AD&D era, I was very young when I joined. And they were mostly older, and more experienced, and they had the patience to teach me how to play, and put up with an obnoxious kid. They spoiled me by setting the bar by which I would judge my experiences in other groups. And in comparison, I have had many attempts to get a group together fall through, and many more times where we would come together and play a few games, and it not work out, scheduling or other issues getting in the way.

On the other hand, I read your post, and I wonder if your expectations for other players are realistic. It sounds like you want a group of hardcore, intense, RP focused players. There's nothing wrong with that, but as you have discovered, not all players are like that. My current group is very laid back, joking a ton, and while we rp, the nonstop banter involves referencing so many things that cross in and out of the game and real world that we joke about being a group of Deadpools. (Ex. A character is polymorphed into a pig? "Good thing for the pig David Cameron isn't here.")

You aren't comfortable with drinking at the game - and I generally approve of saying no player should get too drunk so as to be disruptive - but I have done the 8 hour game sessions. And I tended to have a drink with me when I did, especially over that long a period of time, doing something I'm doing for fun. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right about it, I'm trying to say that it sounds to me like the problems you're facing are 1: effective communication (and collaboration) regarding what style of gameplay and gaming environment the players are looking for and expect, and 2: not finding the right group for you (1 would help you determine if they were the right group before it blows up). It sounds to me, like I said before, like you're an intense, hardcore RP focused gamer. And would do best in a group of similar players. And it kind of sounds like the reason for your discouragement and negativity is expecting other players to be that way, then finding out they're not.

But that's just my 2 copper.

[Hunter Noventa]

"Everyone" is quoting this one paragraph about "good groups don't just spontaneously form", and for good reason. But it's only mostly right. Rather, you should expect that getting a good group will take work.

"Session 0" is, indeed, an "advanced concept", in that it takes skill to communicate successfully in one. The best "group of strangers" variant I've seen is the "series of one-shots". Everyone runs different characters, and the GM runs styles of games, for everyone to show their range. Then the group can talk intelligently - with examples - about what they liked, and make informed decisions about what kind of games & what kinds of characters might produce a fun experience.

Once you've got a group with enough skills & enough shared experiences, you can try with just a "session 0".

I see there being two halves to a session zero. One half is what most people are talking about, getting the bigger concepts of the campaign and such together.

The other half, one a group of relative newbies could benefit from, is coming together to build your characters all at the same time. So that everyone can ask for advice and it's a bit easier to build without stepping on anyone's toes.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by exelsisxax
Good gaming groups don't spontaneously form.

Sometimes they do. My current group began as a scatter of prospective players on a Meetup thread, including myself, who were waiting to join a game. When the original DM never followed up, I volunteered to fill in with a little scenario I’d been working on.

Three years later the campaign is still rolling on, and it’s one of the best groups I’ve ever gamed with. We were all complete strangers when we started, but somehow we clicked.

It’s rare, I’ll grant you; I tried starting several campaigns prior to this and most of them fizzled after a couple of sessions. This time it worked out.

[denthor]

With inexperienced players take a 20 each of them must grab their own. Place it aside let them know nothing happens until that dice hits the table.

Go from there.

[Tvtyrant]

Sometimes they do. My current group began as a scatter of prospective players on a Meetup thread, including myself, who were waiting to join a game. When the original DM never followed up, I volunteered to fill in with a little scenario I’d been working on.

Three years later the campaign is still rolling on, and it’s one of the best groups I’ve ever gamed with. We were all complete strangers when we started, but somehow we clicked.

It’s rare, I’ll grant you; I tried starting several campaigns prior to this and most of them fizzled after a couple of sessions. This time it worked out.

So you met on a group of people looking for a serious group, and then filled in the role that got dropped? That sounds exactly like the post you are disagreeing with, none of that is spontaneous.

[Talakeal]

People showing up to games drunk / stones has been a big problem for me as well. One of the guys in my previous group was actually kicked for doing hard drugs in the bathroom mid session.

It sucks. I don't think there is a solution aside from holding out hope for people who don't haver substance abuse problems and then making a group out of them, but if you find one, please let me know!

[Yahzi Coyote]

(I had begun to realise that my love for my main world might be a problem for new groups. I tried to create a scenario I wouldnt mind people ******* about in. I failed.)

Maybe you'd be happier writing stories than running games. If you're trying to tell a story, PCs will never play their assigned parts. I approach DMing as a way for other people to tell me stories. I present a world and see what they do with it. If I want to tell a story myself, then I write a story.

[Crake]

Maybe you'd be happier writing stories than running games. If you're trying to tell a story, PCs will never play their assigned parts. I approach DMing as a way for other people to tell me stories. I present a world and see what they do with it. If I want to tell a story myself, then I write a story.

This is actually one of the problems with one of my previous gaming groups, that quite recently fell apart, (and I felt very much the same way as OP when it happened, it's still rather fresh), I actually more wanted them to explore the world, but they had very little enthusiasm in that regard, but then when I instead tried to run a more story-focused game, they still didn't really engage, and even berated one of the only players who did get involved, or actually thought of and created interesting and powerful characters to the point where that player also began to disengage. I'm still not sure what the players wanted from the game, maybe they just wanted some time to hang out, maybe they wanted something that I couldn't offer them, but they've all tried DMing, and none of them have the interest or enthusiasm to really DM anything long term it seems.

Either way, they decided to cut me off, which really is a blessing in disguise, I feel like I've been compromising more and more as the years have gone by, and it feels good to finally start something fresh with new players (plus the one player that didn't cut me off, and actually enjoyed engaging and participating in my world). I'm running a hero's journey style story-based game right now, we're about 3 sessions in, and the players seem to be enjoying themselves. We've basically just ended the prologue, and the players are setting off on their journey to save their town from an encroaching evil that, for now, seems far beyond them.

Anyway, point is: I agree with the others who have said that a good group doesn't just come overnight. You play with different people, keep the ones who play well with you, let the other go back to trying to find their own perfect fits, but don't be afraid to take a break if you need to.

[Aotrs Commander]

Maybe you'd be happier writing stories than running games. If you're trying to tell a story, PCs will never play their assigned parts. I approach DMing as a way for other people to tell me stories. I present a world and see what they do with it. If I want to tell a story myself, then I write a story.

Depends entirely on your group. My experience has generally been that the couple of times in the last couple of decades I tried something that's not basically Running A Module (be it an purchased on or one I've written myself) was greeted with crickets chirping. I's an experiment I wouldn't repeat now.

(It's hard enough getting my players to write-up a brief background for their characters (with the understanding it can be as little or as long as they like, then all I need do in the latter case - since I inevitably know the world better - is localise it in. Most of the time, it's the former. Which is, y'know fine and wouldn't offer to basically do it for them if I wasn't prepared to, but it does show where we fall on the line.)

[Eldariel]

Sad to hear. I'm sure many of us are on a similar boat, to a degree. It happens a lot, especially with popular systems that cater to wildly different playstyles, but know that there are lots of people out there and some are probably similarly minded. One of the great wonders of the internet is the ability to find people from a much broader set than was possible in the pre-net era. This might be frustrating in a way but it might also give you the option of finding compatible people with whom to play in the future. Hell, basically every group I'm playing with nowadays is a group where I'm compromising on some actually pretty important factor gamestyle-wise. I really think there needs to be a "Tinder for Pen'n'Paper"-sorta thing to this end though; online play is one thing you can easily find people for, but it's just not the same (low commitment, time zone issues, little connection to the other people, etc.).

[RNightstalker]

It sounds like D&D has been a big part of your life. Not everything lasts forever, but it can make finding the next group worth it when you do find it if you're up for putting in the effort. Maybe take a break for a bit, but I don't recommend quitting. To find the group you want, you'll need to work to find them or get found. The roll you don't take is always a Natural 1.