I've played in a lot of games with a lot of groups. The overwhelming majority of them were not good at all. As a result, I've grown so weary of tabletop games that I don't trust GMs to do anything decent even with the most basic of plot points. Everything feels extremely boring and predictable no matter what any given GM throws at me. I think it's not even their fault anymore, there's probably something wrong with me.
What should I do, /tg/? Is the hobby over for me?
>>47908550
it sounds like you don't like tabletop games
>>47908550
Stop playing D&D.
>>47908550
Have you tried donning the GM mantle yourself?
>The overwhelming majority of them were not good at all.
But some were good, right?
Just keep chasing that dream.
Most people suck at storytelling, yes. Most people suck at most things. Sorry you had to find out like this.
>>47908662
Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-anon.
>>47908973
If the advice can sometimes solve the problem, keep suggesting it as an option.
>>47908550
Try GMing. It might re-invest you in the hobby, or murder it completely.
Either way you're good.
>>47908550
It sounds like the problem is your standards are too high and you don't get on well with others.
>>47908987
The problem with the "have you tried not playing D&D" is that people use it more often than not when playing a different system wouldn't solve anything.
Few problems discussed on this board can be solved just by switching systems, largely because at the end of the day, the system is actually only a small component to the game that's being run, and that switching systems just leads to a new veneer on the same old problems.
"Try X system" is not always bad advice, but it's not particularly helpful in a thread about problem players, or about story issues, or even alignment arguments, because even in the last case it's just a name (or a different name) for things you'll find in find in almost every other game. Even games "without" alignments still have degrees of morality to them or factions with codes of conduct, and most alignment arguments typically revolve around these two features of alignment.
Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system, and the idea that you should abandon a system just because something didn't work out is why we find a lot of people hopping through multiple systems hoping that a change of game will solve their problems.
Most of the whole problem with system discussion is that it's actually political in nature. Play X game or play Y game is a tactic to try to garner support for one game or dissuade people from playing another, and is largely dishonest in its lack of transparency. D&D becomes a target not because it's a bad game by any measure, but because it's popularity means people are less inclined to play other games.
As a person who has played his share of everything under the sun and now plays homebrews almost exclusively, I've really gotten tired of people claiming system superiority or inferiority when they're all just talking about the same inferior games just under different disguises.
If only they knew how amazing Duck in the Circle was.
>>47909017
Hold on...
I get the stack of books, white Zinfadel, and the haughty get up, but what's with the bread in his jacket?
I know how you feel anon. I only know like 3 or 4 good GMs. everyone in my main group sucks at it, so I have to DM like 3 campaigns in a row on game day.
>>47908991
>>47908680
I want to give it a try but I can never scrounge up more than 2 players. I'd rather not play with randoms if I can help it.
>>47909111
Checked, fampai.
I would tell you not to be a coward but then again, that is only up to you so... if you absolutely want to play, then you will do so, even with only two players.
>>47909111
I've actually found that games work best with only two players. One is too few, four is too many, and while three is okay and dynamic, two is where the players can really develop their characters, using each other as direct foils, and there's a lot less splitting of attention.
>>47909168
>four is too many
I disagree.
>>47909111
Two players are fine.
Think smaller, more personable stories instead of "save the world" stuff. There are plenty of stories about a knight and his squire, or two soldiers returning home, a scam artist and his accomplice.
Plus with 2 it's a little less pressure when you're just starting out.
>>47909067
I dunno, I'd say the difference between how a D&D game is played and how a shadowrun game is played sort of disproves the idea that all the systems are the same.
The one tends to arcing tales or dungeon crawling, and the other tends towards heavily planned heists or petty criminalism.
I've grappled with this feeling a lot OP. A friend set me straight. You have to think of the enjoyment you can get from what you do, rather than what others do.
Play your character as excellently as you can even if the campaign falls apart shortly.
Host as well as you can each session. Avoid "necessary" bad sessions to reach "the gold parts." Don't get hung up on end results.
I've learned these lessons a lot and I'm still a bit sad that I'm not playing in anything currently and what I do kokn usually collapses within the first story arc if not the intro. But I keep going and now that I GM to GM well instead of to reach the end of a good enough campaign I enjoy each session much more.
Also when in doubt run a shorter campaign. You can always extend it to run another, you can't gracefully derail a train mid trip.
>>47909017
>no fedora
>no excessive fat
>no boils size of a knuckle
>no cigarette or vape smoke
6/10
>>47909678
I don't know, the 'Byronic hero wannabe' aspect is pretty potent.
>>47909332
Seconding this. A while ago I felt pretty burned out on role-playing games in general, like OP, but after a break and switching over to a newforge-inspiredsystem which had entirely different design philosophy on how the game should be approached, it invigorated my interest in the hobby. Might not work for everyone, but it's always worth a try.
