Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Callista 11-14-04, 01:40 AM	My group suffers from a problem I suppose most established groups have long ago solved: Different levels of dedication to the game. Our group is rather large; we have 15 people who play at one time or another. 4 of us, including me, DM, usually one at a time. Group A: There are a couple of players who really don't enjoy the game, but come anyway just to hang out. They don't role-play, their characters don't have personalities, but most of the DMs are running a hack-and-slash game and really don't care to kick them out. Group B: Then there are the people who simply enjoy smashing things to bits. This is the majority (6 people, and 2 DMs) of the group. They don't role-play much either; and they treat D&D like a video game--lots of combat interspersed with short, straightforward cut-scene role-playing. Group C: Then there are five role-players; two of us, including me, DM. We are the most dedicated ones in our group; we've all bought at least the core books, and one of us has probably ten books total (after 2 years of gaming). Two of them are natural powergamers who enjoy a bit of hack-and-slash, which is okay with me since they also have non-munchkin characters with personalities. Problem is with the different interest levels in the group. Group A thinks Group C is nuts, overzealous, obsessed, and doesn't have "a life". Groups A and B annoy Group C because they're constantly doing things like going off-topic, ignoring the DM, having no idea whose initiative it is or what their spells do, and not taking role-playing seriously. For example, when one of my fellow players, who is playing a sorcerer that's been obsessed with stopping necromancy ever since he experienced a botched resurrection attempt (long story) role-played being extremely angry at an evil cleric and his undead minions, only about five of us were really listening; and when the guy had his incensed PC pour alchemist's fire over the cleric's body to burn it to ashes, most of the players didn't see the sense in doing so (despite the obvious prevention-of-most-resurrection-attempts benefit, and the natural RP symbolism of destroying the cleric's evil completely). "Wasting alchemist's fire"?! We're 6th level; we'd be wasting an attack if we actually used it in combat! So today, a member of Group A started complaining to me how obsessed this sorcerer's player is. I don't think he's any more obsessed than the average sports fan, personally; but because D&D, in Group A and B's mind, is a game on a level with monopoly or checkers, they think he (and to a lesser degree, the other members of Group C, including me) has an "unhealthy interest" in D&D. The guy is making decent grades in college; he's not living in his mom's basement; he's a leader in his ROTC group; he hasn't lost touch with reality; and last I checked, he hasn't been trying to cast Fireball on anyone in real life. Sure, he draws his D&D characters, and sure, he makes up really involved campaign worlds; and yes, he does make backgrounds for his characters--Heck, I do the same thing, except that I can't draw! You and I would say he's "a good player"; they say he's "obsessed". Go figure. There seems to be no impetus at all to form a group out of those of us who are serious about playing; I think everyone is too afraid of "rejecting" those who aren't. I am DMing a subgroup of my own, in which the three players are all good at role-play (and I've seen a truly amazing amount of it); but I would really like to be a player, too. What I'm really afraid of, though, is that eventually, the friction between these three groups will result in everyone in general becoming disgusted with the way things are going. People who go off track constantly, in a party as large as 8 people, make for a VERY slow game and a lot of frustration. I would hate for that to happen. Is there anything you can think of that I can do to prevent it?
Kellendros 11-14-04, 03:01 AM	IMO if you keep on as you’re going, you’re screwed; it will go to hell, so it’s better to try and fix things now and have a better chance to salvage something than risk losing it all. Ditch group A completely, and form two separate groups with B & C, B’s group a casual “we’ll play whenever we can get together but it’s no biggie if we don’t” kinda game, and a structured X day X time every week regular group with the guys in C. As for wanting to play; ditto. :p Not much you can do there unless someone else wants/decides/is willing to run something. That's what I'd do anyway...
Telperion 11-14-04, 03:53 AM	I totally agree with Kellendros. Ditch group A, take what you can from group B and form two parallel gaming groups. You can make it so that there are two entirely separate adventures going on in the same world, and although the two might overlap sometimes the characters in game 1 and game 2 never meet each other. BTW: have you ever tried playing with just 4 players and a DM? A small group has the added attraction of allowing greater interaction between players and game world, since fewer players are trying to hog the spotlight at any given time ;).
ck2001wendt 11-14-04, 09:26 AM	Group C is the size of my RPG group, and is well within the optimal size range (4-6 players) for a good D&D campaign. Ditch Groups A AND B, and start enjoying your D&D experience a little more...
Death Unlimited 11-14-04, 09:38 AM	Yeah, I try to stick with playing with folks that share outlooks. Our typical gaming groups(different groups of friends), all typically have the same style...some hack and slash, some roleplay, balanced bits of each. It all depends on mood and the like at the time. But we have pretty balanced games, no real munchkins, we just try to optimize our folks for the good of the party(of course, we take our disadvantages as well if it fits the character). AKA: We just do what we do and have fun with it. But occationaly we've come across people that just have totally different mindsets...and yeah, it can throw things off. I think you should get group C together, with maybe a few folks from the other groups, and just have a blast like that. Might work out best that way. And as for being overzealous, yeah, as long as no fireballs are being cast in real life, I don't see a problem. I ask people to draw my characters for me when I can, make up detailed backgrounds, typically we work at character creation for a session or two before we play, and roleplay them. I have never started running down the street with an axe foaming at the mouth yet. :D
MetalGemini 11-14-04, 10:17 AM	Group C is the size of my RPG group, and is well within the optimal size range (4-6 players) for a good D&D campaign. Ditch Groups A AND B, and start enjoying your D&D experience a little more... I agree with ck. Get rid of A & B. They'll just end up causing more trouble and headache for you in the end. 15 people is a hell of a lot. Most I've done is 10 and that was crazy. It doesn't give any of the players enough action time to role-play their characters. I can't imagine fighting with 14 other people to try and say something constructive about whats going on. If you want to be nice about it, don't ditch A & B, just stop playing with them. Then start a new game with group c.
Dartanel 11-14-04, 11:27 AM	Don't stop playing with A and B... Just stop playing DnD with them. Group A might be more fun just going out for Pizza or out clubbing together. Group B might be more fun just playing halo or something.
Feriin 11-14-04, 02:26 PM	Hmm My group is kind of a cross between B and C. We have 12 or so people who play ( and damned if everyone of then shows up at once). Our core group consiste of the DM , me , the DM's son, and 2 others. We all have hack & slash as primary attributes but we also have roleplay as a close second. Our games to go off topic at a normal pace. ( no problem here we tell jokes, stories about things what not, its fun). We take breaks every now and then to stratigies(sp) and play other games ( go Xbox). I wouldn't be to worried about the direction of your game, as long as the DM and core group still have fun, most others will to.
tec-9-7 11-14-04, 03:55 PM	With this many people, why on earth would you all be wasting time playing with people you don't enjoy playing with? This should be extremely simple - Group C should do their own game; if anyone from A or B wants to play just say "Sorry, Jimbo decided to run this game w/ 5 players (or however many are in group C) and Calista, Emily, Jack, Charles, and Bailey were the first ones to say they wanted to play... And then stick to it. A and B should easily be able to do their own gaming, and should mesh decently well. Again, WHY with 15 people are you playing w/ people that don't match your styles???
Callista 11-14-04, 06:09 PM	Why 15? Well, first of all, 15 of us don't usually play at the same time. Generally the number in any particular game is anywhere from 3+DM (my games) to 9-10+DM (the others). I'm a new DM and, using the excuse that I just can't handle that many players (true), I just grabbed some new players and we went off on our own. The three I have are all newbies, so I haven't quite categorized them yet; and I'm teaching them to play. They're looking like group C material, though. One decided to play a male character her first time around, and is actually role-playing a male quite well, if a little over-done. Another is just learning to RP, but she's coming out of her shell... her elven fighter/wizard is an animal-lover completely obsessed with the dog she owns. The third is playing an extremely cheeky halfling bard whom we've all gotten quite a few laughs out of... Unfortunately, these kids don't know how to optimize their characters yet. Even a little bit. So currently our party is fighter/wizard, ranger/bard, and straight bard. *sigh* I've had to add NPC rogues and clerics, and practically hand them wands of CLW. It's kind of annoying to have a party that's so downright ineffective compared to the balanced fighter/rogue/cleric party they could've had. It's going to be an interesting task balancing encounters so that the fighter/wizard isn't doing ALL the damage. I really don't want to ditch the main group, though. For one, I'd be leaving the three role-players with a bunch of yahoos. All three are senior to me as far as gaming goes, so protocol dictates I can't really ask them to join my game (and six players is a bit much anyway). If anything, they'd have to take the initiative and decide to DM a separate game. One has already attempted to limit the numbers in his own game (excluding me, unfortunately; I think he's afraid to ask me because I'm female and people will think he likes me... jeez, we're college students!), but people keep arriving to join, and he doesn't say no. So he ends up with 8 people regardless, and gets pretty frustrated. Maybe I should just enjoy what I have, hope my little newbie group turns into something cool, and hope the non-serious players eventually drift away to a different hobby. Other than that, I can't see any other solutions. *bangs head against imaginary wall*
tec-9-7 11-14-04, 06:16 PM	Unfortunately, these kids don't know how to optimize their characters yet. Even a little bit. So currently our party is fighter/wizard, ranger/bard, and straight bard. *sigh* I've had to add NPC rogues and clerics, and practically hand them wands of CLW. It's kind of annoying to have a party that's so downright ineffective compared to the balanced fighter/rogue/cleric party they could've had. It's going to be an interesting task balancing encounters so that the fighter/wizard isn't doing ALL the damage. I wouldn't worry about this too much. If they're solid role-players, you can work around a sub-optimal party. I'll take a group of good role-players any day over talented min-maxers... The thing about having two bards is that you can get a decent pseudo-Rogue out of one. If the player doesn't mind slighting the social skills, the Bard list actually lets you make a decent thief-type character. That is if the two players are willing to split the skill duties.
Judging Eagle 11-15-04, 12:46 AM	Don't worry too much about the role-players being underpowered. Role-players can learn to make more optimized builds later on. Teaching min/maxers to role-play is much, much, -MUCH- harder. Also, since you're the DM, and you prolly want this group to live for a bit. Try to keep them alive till around level 6 or so. That is, you won't let them die until they've passed level 6 (barring jumping into a lava-filled volcano or something similarly stupid). Oh, and don't tell them that you'll be doing this either.
PhaedrusXY 11-15-04, 02:41 PM	I was in a similiar situation for a bit. We had a large circle of people who roleplayed sometimes, but most of them weren't really that interested in it. For those of us who were more "hard-core", we had one campaign that only we played in and we were very picky about who we let play in it. All the other people were welcome to play in other games/campaigns. They complained about it, and thought we were elitists, but I don't really care. They got over it, and we got to enjoy at least one game free from distractions like "Where are the cheetos? Got any Mountain Dew?". :cool:
Thoronmir 11-15-04, 04:11 PM	First and foremost, D&D ought to be fun. I suppose I’ve always been a “Category C” player. I’ve joined groups that seemed to use D&D as a thinly veiled excuse to hang out and drink beer while jawing about movies, music, etc. There’s nothing wrong such groups, but sooner or later, I’d leave in search of an actual game. As for the “protocol” of demurring to the more experienced players … I don't get it. There’s no reason you can’t approach them about forming a splinter group more dedicated to how you think D&D ought to be played. Chances are you’re not the only one who’s had such thoughts. I’d rather DM a game for one good roleplayer than any “mixed” party. The players in Categories A and B have valid opinions about how to play. But when you mix the dedicated with the dilettantes, no one has much fun. It’s like trying to play softball when half your team wants to play seriously and the rest think it’s a good idea to put a keg at each base … both ways work well, just not together.
ZACKOLicious 11-16-04, 09:53 PM	I agree with most everybody on ditching group A, but i dont think you should get rid of group B. because once you get rid of group A group B will most likely start to do some RPing of thier own. Also, the are the people who tend to keep things a little more light-harted than Group C. just my 2 cp
Callista 11-17-04, 12:00 AM	I am by no means saying that the way group B plays D&D is any more "right" than the way I play (other than the couple of players who are real munchkins, but that is another story). I'm just saying there's a difference in the way we look at things, and sometimes that causes problems...
Callista 11-17-04, 12:11 AM	Double post. My bad.
Xarian 11-17-04, 12:28 PM	Go with the people you like - 4-5 + you as DM (or one of them even) would be good. I suggest keeping your new players, provided you have fun playing with them. Also, if you're DMing and they're not optimizing their characters then it's not really that big of a deal - just put in less powerful encounters and focus on non-combat adventures. -Xar