So, I came back to my hometown for the 4th of July weekend, and caught up with some old friends, including my former tabletop group.
Last night, we got to reminiscing about old campaigns, and I was mentioning to my then-GM how some of the tips he gave me have really helped my own GMing. But then the conversation turned to a particular game we played, with a homebrew system, and I remembered a lot of the early part seemed to be randomly running around fighting monsters of the session and coming back for cash, which he always said (and I tend to agree) is a bad model, which prompted the inevitable question as to why he did it then, and his answer, with a shrug, was
>Well, we were trying Rick's system, remember? I had originally planned it to be just a short meaningless thing, get some system mastery all around, and then we'd move on to a real campaign. But you guys got attached to your characters, so I sewed it into the ideas I was tinkering with at the time.
I mean, it makes sense. Something I'd do if I was GMtesting someone's new system. But I can't help but feel annoyed and betrayed over it, even if overall it was one of the better campaigns I played in, certainly one of the most I've felt vulnerable in.
>>48111374
You were in a campaign that you had fun with and admit is one of the better ones you've played in, and that makes you... angry? Because the GM adjusted his campaign plans since you guys liked your characters?
Take a deep breath, Anon.
This isn't worth getting angry over. You all had a fun campaign from the sounds of it and finding out that it began from a series of one-shot should not diminish that enjoyment. You sound like you and your former GM are in agreement and the situation arose naturally. Being mad at your younger selves is not something that should affect your current selves negatively.
Also, this is why they tell you not to look behind the curtain.
>>48111435
More like the illusion of story was broken for a mechanical reason.
>>48111374
You're a whiny cunt and looking for reasons complain. You're actually making up reasons to be mad.
>>48111489
Only for the beginning, then it turned out to be an excellent campaign.
>>48111511
Which would have been a better campaign still if we hadn't been dragged down with "Hey nothing's happening except this time you kill an uh, bear. Go do that for money and xp"
The campaign got good once we got away from Isle Boredom and actually started a campaign.
>>48111374
OP, and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be taking offense to his words, specifically:
>I had originally planned it to be just a short meaningless thing
Emphasis on the word "meaningless". Sounds like you have the right to be mad at his phrasing, but at the same time he probably didn't mean to say anything to get you mad.
I'm not asking you to calm down or telling you to stop being angry. I just want to show the other side of the coin. Whether or not you believe it...
Well, only the cards we've been dealt know.
>>48111692
Okay, and?
I've literally never seen a campaign that was good in the beginning. Flat out. The first 3 sessions are basically always garbage. Or, at the very best, "passable but not actually how the rest of the campaign/characters/plot shakes out, so it's like they were a different game entirely."
That's the nature of the beast, and you are looking for reasons to be mad because being content is inimical to nerds.
>>48111788
Maybe I should have described the campaign a bit, because yeah, it started off with a pile of rubbish nonsense.
>Start off as a mercenary group.
>Setting sail to a given island to hire onto a war.
>Get blown off course
>Crash our ship on this island in an area that seems to be perpetually misty.
>Fuck.jpg.
>Do assorted quests for islanders, chasing down small monsters at the fringes of civilization and the like
>Do this for several game sessions, about a month and a half real time
>Eventually, while chasing a small clutch of fire-lizards, we stumble across this underground passage that leads to another island and then the REAL campaign started off.
And yeah, I had asked him about it to begin with because it seemed tacked on and kludgy and not at all in line with how he usually likes to streamline things, and then having it confirmed like that, and like it was no big deal, dunno. Irritated me.
>>48111796
>I've literally never seen a campaign that was good in the beginning.
I have. Some of his other work, too. Usually, the way to get good initial sessions is to put the PCs en prise somehow, instead of waiting for them to stumble around and bum pinto whatever the main narrative structure of the campaign is.
And "Running for your life" is often a good way to meld otherwise disparate character personalities/backgrounds/alignments/whateveryoucallit together without forcing extremely awkward collaborative character-building.
>>48111489
you make that sound like a bad thing. Would you have preferred it if he lied to you?
>>48111865
Because it wasn't a big deal? Holy crap, you had a game come about organically instead of having your DM spend weeks writing a plot for you and you're upset? Good thing he doesn't have to put up with your shit anymore.
>>48115219
Except it quite literally DIDN'T come together organically. What were you doing when the rest of us were learning to read back in grade school?
you're mad about nothing
in your opening post you LITERALLY typed out its something YOU YOURSELF WOULD DO TO OTHER PEOPLE
you aren't allowed to be mad
>>48111374
>GM 5 year pathfinder campaign that all my players loved
>only ran it because one of the players wanted to test his paladin charge build
OP, the ONLY campaigns that are successful in a long term come about because the players get invested rather than the GM at first. If the GM tries to get some grand spectacle and epic arcs, the game will crash and burn, guaranteed.
>>48111374
THIS >>48116243!!!
Good GMs make good games. Good players make good campaigns. Dude only wanted to playtest something and planned accordingly. You guys made it "one of the better campaigns I played in".
And I must say, that "I can't help but feel annoyed and betrayed over" "one of the better campaigns I played in" really sounds like you need to consult a psychiatrist.
