The group is very story-oriented. If you can make a convincing argument that your ability to do something makes the story more interesting, then you can do it. They spend several minutes before each scene talking about how that scene should fit into the overall story, what beats should be hit, and how it forwards the action.
I came in with a character who I had designed as kind of a basketcase. I really didn't want to play a badass leader – in fact, I specifically designed the guy to have his own goals and motivations, under the assumption that the current players would provide me with a reason to throw my lot in with theirs.
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. In fact, my character was pretty much ignored by the other characters as they went through their personal dramas. Worse, the players were completely reactive. The DM would posit a scenario, the players would describe their reaction, and then the DM would posit another one. At no point did any player make any attempt to get a hold on a situation and steer it. For example, an emissary from the villain came to see the party, resulting in a disastrous negotiation that ended with one character getting the flesh stripped to the bone off one leg and another pinned to the wall with a spear through the gut – in the party's home, no less! The party's reaction: let's sit on our hands for 48 hours until we are supposed to meet with an enemy who may have some information about the villain's location.
Struggling to remain in character, I realized that my character's role was now complete. He had been hired to help research a specific arcane topic, he had assisted in that research, the research was complete, the name and location of my enemy had been provided without question or hesitation in exchange for my help, and the party of supposed heroes I had linked up with were looking more and more inept. (In fact, I had no reason to think they were heroes, because nobody had even bothered to fill me in on the end of the world prophecy that there were trying to prevent.)
So… I kind of lost it. Both in character and out of character, I berated them rather severely for essentially doing nothing, and before I knew it I was stepping all over one character's big dramatic scene (having her leg skinned was supposed to give her some kind of depth, I guess) in order to devise an actual plan to actually accomplish something before the session was out.
The players seemed to take it rather well. Not great. The woman whose big scene I stepped on was kind of ****** that I stole her moment, which I can understand. And they were very defensive in general, which I can also understand. In fact, I think part of the problem is with the DM, who seems driven to throw everybody into a crisis at every turn. For example, if the party decides to break up for the night to sleep, we go immediately into whenever and wherever the next conflict is set to occur. This pacing gives players very, very little time to think about anything except what's right in front of their faces. However, I didn't want to turn on the DM because I find that players are more comfortable having critical discussions about the game amongst themselves, whereas a DM can quickly feel overwhelmed if a bunch of players start complaining all at once.
So anyway, as the evening ended I found my character involving himself against his nature, basically because he took pity on this pathetic party. It was either that or have him move on, his goals fulfilled, and invent a new character whose goals dovetailed with the group's more naturally. Knowing that one character was deadset on waiting for the meeting (ah yes, meeting with our enemies for a supposedly diplomatic conversation at a time and place of their choosing – that should work out perfectly!), I invited the character I had been getting along with best to strike out on our own. The party splintered into groups of 1 and 2, and the night ended with everybody setting out to respond to the attack in their own way.
So my question is, did I do a good thing, or a bad thing? My observation was that there was no reason for the party to be working together in the first place – they didn't get along, they didn't work well together, they all had different goals and strategies, and they each had a personal dilemma that was overshadowing this end-of-the-world prophecy business for them. As an audience member, I am utterly convinced that having the team split up was the right thing to do (ideally to come together again later as they find the gaps in their individual knowledge and skills reminds them why they started working together in the first place).
As a new player in a game with people I have never played with before, I am afraid that I have done significant damage to the game and my ability to play it.
Should I back off and let the DM keep telling us what happens next? It would be called railroading in my other group if we decided to break for the night, and the next day started with us already standing before a vampire council to ask for their assistance, glossing over the discovery of the vampire council's location, whatever happened that made us think they might provide assistance, the decision to go talk to them (including whether, when, and how), all traveling, etc., and nobody would stand for it. It rather chafes on me, and I feel like I might as well be having storytime with a kindergarten class for all the agency I have.
Should I quit the group rather than end up thoroughly derailing their playstyle? I like these people and I don't want to cause problems.
Or should I just keep trying to steer the story in the direction that I feel it should go (trying to be more careful not to step on anybody's scenes, of course), and trust that they will let me know if I am being disruptive?
Does anybody have any stories about new players joining their game whose style was at odds with the group's? Does it ever work out well?
So my question is, did I do a good thing, or a bad thing?
No.
It wasn't a good thing.
It wasn't a bad thing.
It was just a thing.
You're new blood to the group. It will change the group. Change is nadja; not virtue or sin.
The DM is providing a story (conflicts), the party is reacting to the conflict (character development), and you are holding the group together, even by splitting them apart (plot). This is a new dynamic. It is new, and nadja.
1. Create a basketcase character with no reason whatsoever to be with the party.
2. Expect the other players to put more work into your character than you are willing to do by expecting them come up with a reason for your character to be adventuring.
3. Berate and insult them on their preferred method of playing.
4. Split the party - the bane of every DM.
Yea, you screwed up. You should apologize to the rest of the table.
All I can say is, ask if they mind the slight change in playstyle, and explain how it works in terms of story (improving characters self-esteem, and showing them why they are needed as a group with help raise the value of the party to one another). If they don't mind, then there is nothing wrong with what you did - as said by crazysamaritan, change is not a bad thing or a good thing. I'd apologise to the girl who got her leg skinned though and say you didn't really think about "Stealing her moment" so much as reacting how you believe someone would react in your character's situation (DO NOT SAY "THAT IS WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO".) and eplain you are sorry for stealing her moment.
By admitting that you may have messed up what they prefer to play and saying sorry but asking them if they mind the new direction the story is taking, you will be proving you are a mature enough person to deal with this.
Also, I think that a few "Go beyond the impossible and kick reason to the curb!" Kamina-style speeches are in order.
Does anybody have any stories about new players joining their game whose style was at odds with the group's? Does it ever work out well?
It's hard to tell if it's bad or good yet, but yes you've changed things. They've been playing one way, and you've got a very different idea on how to play. Some players will probably start playing like you do, some will probably want to keep their old ways.
Worst thing that can happen is the group falls apart while some hold on to the old ways and other join your new ones.
Best thing is you compliment each others play style, you provide the action, they provide the re-action, thus you both win.
How well it will work out depends on how xenophobic people are. If you/they are accepting of the other play styles it then it can work out well. But if people start getting berating/defensive, then it's sunk. Respect needs to go both ways.
Everyone, them and you, have a right to enjoy the game.
Does anybody have any stories about new players joining their game whose style was at odds with the group's? Does it ever work out well?
In my experience, when this happens, the player with the incompatible style simply stops showing up. Whether he actually says he's not showing up or simply disappears off the face of the planet is usually the only question.
So you are a new guy at the table with folks who have been enjoying a campaign which has presumably been going on for quite some time, and you:
1. Create a basketcase character with no reason whatsoever to be with the party.
2. Expect the other players to put more work into your character than you are willing to do by expecting them come up with a reason for your character to be adventuring.
3. Berate and insult them on their preferred method of playing.
4. Split the party - the bane of every DM.
Yea, you screwed up. You should apologize to the rest of the table.
Agreed.
And thus you see that there is no single correct answer, and anyone capable of approaching the situation through the looking glass will see that the best answer is, "maybe."
Maybe; because it depends on what happens next. If the group is open to new ideas and styles of play, then they may choose (consciously or not) to roll with the injection of difference your have provided the game, and the game and the group can become all the stronger for it.
If they refuse, or are content with their ways, then a shakeup of this manner could simply be brushed off as fluke, ignored outright, politely dismissed, actively fought or a hundred other outcomes.
I have seen such a situation go both ways, and have instigated it once myself (it ended up with the group shrinking but becoming better players, and with I becoming the primary DM, if you're curious).
In your shoes, I would continue with your methods and see how the party adapts to them. A group that has become complacent with itself may behave very much like the one you describe, and sometimes it takes a new player with a different style to get them to shake it off and start playing again.
I'd say for now, keep doing what you are doing. You'll know soon enough how it's going to turn out.
Wait until the end of the session, and then give feedback in a constructive manner.
* Talk about what you liked first, and then move on to what you didn't like.
* Remember to express criticism as a personal opinion. ("I didn't like this" instead of "This was bad.")
* Give constructive examples of how you'd like things to change. ("I'd like it if my character had more motivation to be involved in the story" rather than "My character has nothing to do.")
* Remember to distance the game from the players. Not liking the game, or the way the game is being played, has nothing to do with whether you like the people - make sure to emphasise that you don't have a personal problem with anyone at the table.
I came in with a character who I had designed as kind of a basketcase. I really didn't want to play a badass leader – in fact, I specifically designed the guy to have his own goals and motivations, under the assumption that the current players would provide me with a reason to throw my lot in with theirs.
This is always dangerous. However, remember that you're allowed to change your character to suit the situation you find yourself in - oftentimes I'll find my character changes somewhat or adopts something defining in the first couple sessions to better suit the party's needs.
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. In fact, my character was pretty much ignored by the other characters as they went through their personal dramas. Worse, the players were completely reactive. The DM would posit a scenario, the players would describe their reaction, and then the DM would posit another one. At no point did any player make any attempt to get a hold on a situation and steer it. For example, an emissary from the villain came to see the party, resulting in a disastrous negotiation that ended with one character getting the flesh stripped to the bone off one leg and another pinned to the wall with a spear through the gut – in the party's home, no less! The party's reaction: let's sit on our hands for 48 hours until we are supposed to meet with an enemy who may have some information about the villain's location.
Well, the question here is WHY things are this way. While a lot of the time this says "DM railroads", it can mean other things as well. They can be glossing over what they consider to be unimportant stuff, throwing it out the window.
The other strong possibility is that the party is simply aimless, and the DM isn't really railroading so much as he is moving the plot along because the players are uncomfortable at doing so themselves.
Depending on why the group is doing what they're doing, there's a good chance you're doing them a favor by shaking things up - the DM may indeed be happy to see you come in.
Struggling to remain in character, I realized that my character's role was now complete. He had been hired to help research a specific arcane topic, he had assisted in that research, the research was complete, the name and location of my enemy had been provided without question or hesitation in exchange for my help, and the party of supposed heroes I had linked up with were looking more and more inept. (In fact, I had no reason to think they were heroes, because nobody had even bothered to fill me in on the end of the world prophecy that there were trying to prevent.)
So… I kind of lost it. Both in character and out of character, I berated them rather severely for essentially doing nothing, and before I knew it I was stepping all over one character's big dramatic scene (having her leg skinned was supposed to give her some kind of depth, I guess) in order to devise an actual plan to actually accomplish something before the session was out.
The players seemed to take it rather well. Not great. The woman whose big scene I stepped on was kind of ****** that I stole her moment, which I can understand. And they were very defensive in general, which I can also understand. In fact, I think part of the problem is with the DM, who seems driven to throw everybody into a crisis at every turn. For example, if the party decides to break up for the night to sleep, we go immediately into whenever and wherever the next conflict is set to occur. This pacing gives players very, very little time to think about anything except what's right in front of their faces. However, I didn't want to turn on the DM because I find that players are more comfortable having critical discussions about the game amongst themselves, whereas a DM can quickly feel overwhelmed if a bunch of players start complaining all at once.
Thing is, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only really bad thing about this is hurting the player's big scene. Conversely, though, you got them thinking and talking, and the fact that they didn't all react by rejecting you indicates they didn't dislike what you were saying. Some of them may have appreciated it, or simply felt helpless.
So anyway, as the evening ended I found my character involving himself against his nature, basically because he took pity on this pathetic party. It was either that or have him move on, his goals fulfilled, and invent a new character whose goals dovetailed with the group's more naturally. Knowing that one character was deadset on waiting for the meeting (ah yes, meeting with our enemies for a supposedly diplomatic conversation at a time and place of their choosing – that should work out perfectly!), I invited the character I had been getting along with best to strike out on our own. The party splintered into groups of 1 and 2, and the night ended with everybody setting out to respond to the attack in their own way.
Nothing wrong with having your character change somewhat to better suit the party's needs. Your character took pity on them, and is trying to make them more heroic. This isn't a bad thing. Its fine to change the character you thought you were playing into one which will work well with the group, while still keeping a lot of the spirit intact. Indeed, you could even work it in - the character may be somewhat frustrated with himself by the fact that he's taking pity on the party.
So my question is, did I do a good thing, or a bad thing? My observation was that there was no reason for the party to be working together in the first place – they didn't get along, they didn't work well together, they all had different goals and strategies, and they each had a personal dilemma that was overshadowing this end-of-the-world prophecy business for them. As an audience member, I am utterly convinced that having the team split up was the right thing to do (ideally to come together again later as they find the gaps in their individual knowledge and skills reminds them why they started working together in the first place).
Some people hate it when PCs split up, but this group honestly sounds like the sort of group which is more likely to be able to handle it. And by splitting up, you can potentially make your character integrate better as well when you join back up if the guy you're with explains to you why the rest of the party is so helpful. Indeed, next time you could even work to drive the party back together by finding out something which you need someone else for, and thus need the party again.
Should I back off and let the DM keep telling us what happens next? It would be called railroading in my other group if we decided to break for the night, and the next day started with us already standing before a vampire council to ask for their assistance, glossing over the discovery of the vampire council's location, whatever happened that made us think they might provide assistance, the decision to go talk to them (including whether, when, and how), all traveling, etc., and nobody would stand for it. It rather chafes on me, and I feel like I might as well be having storytime with a kindergarten class for all the agency I have.
Well, it depends on how things work out. If you aren't having fun, you should leave. But the DM may have been acting the way they were not because they WANT to railroad, but because, as you pointed out, the party was just going to sit around for 48 hours. If that's their typical reaction, the "railroading" may not be to control the story but to simply make the plot move as the players are not inclined to make the story move on their own.
Should I quit the group rather than end up thoroughly derailing their playstyle? I like these people and I don't want to cause problems.
Depends. If things are going badly after a few sessions, you should discuss it with them and if they feel you're being detrimental to them, leave. But the fact that the players didn't react poorly to you is a good sign.
Or should I just keep trying to steer the story in the direction that I feel it should go (trying to be more careful not to step on anybody's scenes, of course), and trust that they will let me know if I am being disruptive?
Isn't this what you should always do? Though its not wrong to ask them if you're being disruptive.
Does anybody have any stories about new players joining their game whose style was at odds with the group's? Does it ever work out well?
It works out well sometimes, and it works out poorly sometimes. It depends on the group, why the group plays the way it does, ect.
The group you're in could be MANY things, and its really difficult for us to distinguish. It could be an overly controlling DM, and you're leading a player rebellion against them. It could be a bunch of players who are too timid to move the story forward themselves, so the DM has to do all the work on advancing the plot. It could be the group simply plays very differently from how you are accustomed to, and you're misinterpreting what's going on and the railroading type behavior you're seeing is actually just the way they advance the plot - the players and DM are interacting, but their interaction is somewhat more scripted, and the players may be having a "behind the scenes' impact with some talk with the DM about the way they wanted things to go. It could be that you're just not going to get along with them, as they like things the way they are.
But don't assume that just because people are currently playing a certain way that changing that way is going to make them unhappy - some groups are "stuck in a slump" so to speak, and appreciate a new person coming in and shaking things up. It can elicit new reactions out of people, make people more bold in what they're willing to stand up and do, and the DM may be thanking his lucky stars that he's finally got a player who is willing to actually do something rather than wait around for him to do everything.
In short, I wouldn't back off - see where this goes for now. Maybe you're doing them a favor, maybe you're being disruptive. And remember, you can always talk with them after next session to see if they appreciate what you're doing.
"Ask not the forums, for they will say both no and yes."
Well, I wanted to get a range of opinions. There are six other players, so chances are not bad that somebody here represents one of those people's feelings for the game.
If you're joining a pre-existing group, particularly one where you don't know all the players previously, it's good manners to take a couple of quiet sessions to see how they normally play to get noisy.
This was pretty much the answer I expected. I really do think the story was stagnating and that the most logical thing for the group was to split up, which is something I've never done before and only felt comfortable with because of the emphasis on story. The story just wasn't progressing naturally with the team working at cross-purposes as they were.
This, I think, is the harshest possible interpretation of what happened:
So you are a new guy at the table with folks who have been enjoying a campaign which has presumably been going on for quite some time, and you:
1. Create a basketcase character with no reason whatsoever to be with the party.
2. Expect the other players to put more work into your character than you are willing to do by expecting them come up with a reason for your character to be adventuring.
3. Berate and insult them on their preferred method of playing.
4. Split the party - the bane of every DM.
Yea, you screwed up. You should apologize to the rest of the table.
And probably at least one person came away with that feeling about it. (Although I didn't insult anybody personally. I know people can take character insults personally, but I only called the guy out on personality quirks of his character he knew were there and included deliberately. If you deliberately play a conflicted character, you should be expecting someone to call you out for being conflicted.)
On top of that you have very passive reactive party that doesn't push the story but works only when the story is presented to them. So it seems like railroading but it's only due the player not being proactive or actually doing anything. You sometimes have to rail road groups like this.
So what you are seeing is scenes being presented to an reactive group wants to the story presented to them so they can interact with but they don't want to participate in creating the story.
So there is nothing wrong with this style of game but you should sit down with the DM as you are proactive player. Discuss with the DM what your character should do to drive the story. You won't change the players but working with the DM you can enhance the fun the whole group is having.
Our flexibility comes in how we do that. Sometimes our rogue with +25 Diplomacy negociates a solution. Sometimes, we blow **** up. Sometimes we do a bit of both.
As to your situation, I think you may have overreacted a little. I think the DM is at fault here, not the other players. You seemed to say he's particularly brutal and graphic. I think he's simply terrified the players into only taking risks when they have to. If given the option between heading outside, doing their own work, and having their characters flayed alive... or sitting in relative safety and having info come to them, most players would opt for the latter.
I think your first night is a bit too quick to make a snap decision... if you aren't bored to tears, hang out a little longer and see what the situation is. If you are, and there's other gaming options, simply drop the DM a 'thanks but no thanks' and move on.
So I stuck around and we finally wrapped up the campaign this past weekend. I'm really glad I kept going, because I think everybody actually came to my way of seeing things. In fact, the dissolution of the party resulted in one player joining forces with the DM and his character becoming one of the main bad guys, in some of the most innovative DMing I've ever seen. Three of us pulled together, and two of the other characters decided to go their own ways. It was a little contrived how we all kept ending up in the same place at the same time as we followed our own leads, but well worth it in the name of fun.
One piece of advice: if your group is very story-oriented, just handwave PC vs. PC combat. We tried it once and it just wasn't fulfilling.
All in all I would say I have learned a valuable lesson: it is important to bow to the demands of the story, but it is far more important not to be a **** about it. If you think the story is leading in an inevitably problematic direction, call a time-out and state your case. It interferes with the game, yes, but far less than angry players and a frustrated DM.
And from now on, I watch at least two sessions before jumping in to a new game, because I obviously did not get enough background by watching just one.
Thanks for everybody's perspectives.