I'm kind of torn about this... and sorry if this is a bit long and ranting...
I'm thinking I might drop out of our bi-weekly Deadlands campaign...
The group I'm playing with is fine and fun, I've no huge issues with our alternating Earthdawn games (different GM)... but Deadlands just keeps letting me down.
The primary issue, as I see it, are the NPCs.
This campaign has the biggest crop of continuing/recurring NPCs I've ever seen in a campaign. Relatives and friends and lovers and employers and employees and hangers-on.
There is a lot of IC banter about the goings on of various NPCs, anecdotes about them, complications of dealing with them. The network of relationships is as intricate as any long-running anime show...
It all sounds cool on paper... but in practice I'm finding it fairly annoying.
1. Most of the NPCs are more powerful than the PCs... one is, literally, an angel. That would be OK with me if they weren't driving most of the action and saving us when we get in too deep. In any given combat our side will have more NPCs than PCs.
Last night we had a fairly epic battle that past sessions had lead up to... armies going at each other while our group assaulted the lead villain. But our PCs had little effect... most of the bad guys were taken down by assisting friends... the main guy gunned down by a powerful NPC.
Again, it wouldn't bug me if it were the exception, rather than the rule.
2. Most all quests/missions/activities involve rescuing one or another of the weaker NPCs who has been taken hostage. I can't remember the last time our games didn't revolve around rescuing someone.
3. Many of the NPCs are actual historical entities or official Deadlands characters... who are all pretty much immune to plot... they do things, cause trouble, but it's obvious that we aren't allowed to shoot them. Wyatt Earp, undead Abraham Lincoln (whatever his name is now...), devils and demons.
4. A large number of the NPCs are family/friends/pets of the GM's wife. She's a nice lady. She writes fan fiction. She watches a lot of anime.
Lots of IC chatter involves anecdotes about these folks. It's not that they're horribly lame... I just don't find them interesting. (she doesn't play in our other fantasy campaign).
5. The GM isn't particularly adept at portraying any of these characters... some of them are colorful on paper (a female spy who is always changing costumes, Artemis Gordon-like)... but dull as soap to deal with. Always the same low whisper... serious sounding and contemplative and flat. It wouldn't be such an issue if there weren't so many, if they weren't so involved in everything we do.
Now, I was a late-comer to this campaign... I've been with them for a few years now but it was going on for a while prior to that. A lot of the IC anecdotes involve stuff from before I was around... mostly stuff about the GM's wife's PC's family.
To my mind the game is a bit dull... and I'm thinking that part of that is that the PCs are not in the drivers seat, the NPCs are.
I'm a fairly pro-active player but when I first started playing I met a lot of resistance about anything I put out in an attempt to generate activity... everything was already wrapped up in this ongoing... well... it's a soap opera.
Most game sessions feel like we're just puttering around... waiting for some NPC to give us orders/get kidnapped. I hate that. It feels like WE are the hirelings... and our employers are vague/confusing/dull.
So... I'm not seeing much choice except to either shut up and take it... or quit the game.
I don't want to blame it all on the GM's wife, but a lot of the issues I have do seem to come back to her influence.
I've been tempted to just start killing some of the extraneous characters off, not completely OOC for my PC, but I know the GM wouldn't allow it.
As far as I can tell I'm the only one having issues... I could ask some of the others but I don't want to be conspiratorial about it.
In a more general sense... how unusual is this sort of thing? Have I just been lucky in playing in games where NPCs were background rather than foreground? What makes NPCs interesting vs. just being 'baggage'?
Wow, this sounds really bad. :(
Try talking to the GM about the actual problem (i.e. "I feel our PCs do not really have much of an impact in your world next to the NPCs whom we cannot interact with outside of what seems to be scripted storylines"), just do not mention his wife. At all. You do not want to compete with his wife, for... obvious reasons.
If that doesn't work, dropping out might be a good call. Old Geezer at RPG.net used to say that "no gaming is better than bad gaming", but the social aspect of RPGs is a big draw for some (myself included), so your mileage may vary.
Well, I'm willing to believe it's all my own fault for not being invested enough in the game... being out of tune somehow. I don't want to make it sound like I'm being oppressed... but yeah, if I can't find a way towards having fun with it I'll drop out (and no, I won't mention the GM's wife in my list of reasons).
I'd talk privately with the GM. Maybe you're not the only player who feels this way. Don't make a big scene out of it, though.
A long time ago I had a similar problem. A fellow GMs wife decided she wanted to try her hand at being a GM. None of the current players thought it would be a problem, she was a regular member of our gaming group and, as a player, she was involved, witty and created interesting characters.
Unfortunately she really didn't cut it as a GM. The primary problem was that she populated her world (based on Tanith Lee's Flat Earth series) with NPCs who were lightyears more powerful than us. Half the time we were pawn of demon princes, elemental spirits or demi-gods. The group suffered through this in silence for about six weeks. Each of us was afraid to say anything because we thought everyone else was having an good time playing. Finally, in an after-game chat session at the local IHOP several of us said we were bored stiff in her game. We agreed that we would talk to the her husband and ask him to resume his regular game where we left it.
I know that scenario doesn't really match up to what's happening to you, but I mostly wanted to post it to let you know that it's probably not just you. Most players want to have some measure of control over their character's fate and you probably aren't the only one is 'just going along with it.'
Talk the GM in private to give him advance notice that you will be dropping out of the game. Even if you don't want to talk to him about your problems with the game, the advance notice will make your leaving feel less abrupt. Once you pull out, that might be the signal other players are looking for to also exit the game. If enough people leave the game the GM will likely ask himself why he isn't holding the interest of players.
But, yeah, I get not wanting to play in the game you described. On the rare chance I get to play in an RPG instead of running I wouldn't want to be a bit player in someone else's fanfic.
"bit player in someone else's fanfic" sums up the problem here, yup. Personally if I were you I would feel exploited and highly aggrieved; I think this GM and his wife have really breached the RPG social contract, part of the deal is that the PCs will be the centre of the game's attention, even if they're just a minor part of the game-world it's vital they be the most important thing in the game itself.
I would talk to the other players, if they feel the same way you could see if the GM is amenable to adjusting the style, or if it's all just a vehicle for his wife's fanfic. I think quitting may well turn out to be the best option.
Quote from: S'mon;451164"bit player in someone else's fanfic" sums up the problem here, yup. Personally if I were you I would feel exploited and highly aggrieved; I think this GM and his wife have really breached the RPG social contract, part of the deal is that the PCs will be the centre of the game's attention, even if they're just a minor part of the game-world it's vital they be the most important thing in the game itself.
I would talk to the other players, if they feel the same way you could see if the GM is amenable to adjusting the style, or if it's all just a vehicle for his wife's fanfic. I think quitting may well turn out to be the best option.
Totally agree with this comment.
This is exactly why when I run Amber I never use any of the elder Amberites (aside from Oberon and Dworkin) because playing in a game where there are 2 dozen active NPCs who are much tougher than you is lame.
I try to make it so that the only NPCs who are tougher than the PCs (well the ones that are actually involved in stuff) are the bad guys.
Quote from: Simlasa;4511273. Many of the NPCs are actual historical entities or official Deadlands characters... who are all pretty much immune to plot... they do things, cause trouble, but it's obvious that we aren't allowed to shoot them. Wyatt Earp, undead Abraham Lincoln (whatever his name is now...), devils and demons.
Trust me Earp at least is not immune to lucky PCs. Mine attracted his attention after a crime spree and ended up gunning him down easily then setting him on fire so he didn't come back as a Harrowed.
Its not a problem to have loads of NPCs, its what the GM and players do with them. Sounds like your GM is not that adept at handling large numbers and keeping them separate from the rest. The amount of NPCs might as well be 1.
From my experience of running Deadlands these kind of recurring hostage rescue/NPCs seems completely unnecessary, I doubt any of my games revolved around that plot element.
To me it would appear the GM is indulging in some form of extended Fan-Fiction in which the players are either willing or unwilling participants (whether they are aware of it or not).
Everyone of my games centres around the heroes, the PCs, but they are constantly reminded about the wider/bigger world, and rule no.1 is its all about them, not about the GMs NPCs. If it meant meant a perfect nights gaming, I'd sacrifice everyone of my NPCs on a nightly basis.
If that was me, I'd drop out, doesn't sound like there is anything worth salvaging. Doesn't matter what the game this person runs...
I've seen the bloat in official products, drives me nuts. In some settings it is important to have example NPC's (superhero games, you need villains.) Others? Not so much, a king here, a scoundrel there. About all you need of official NPC's.
Quote from: Ian Warner;451179Trust me Earp at least is not immune to lucky PCs. Mine attracted his attention after a crime spree and ended up gunning him down easily then setting him on fire so he didn't come back as a Harrowed.
Actually, the official Pinnacle stance now is that no one is off-limits, as of Deadlands Reloaded...they ditched the "plot armor" as it were.
What a trainwreck!
"No gaming is better than bad gaming" is absolutely true, but hopefully you will be able to find another gaming group with a better GM.
Quote from: Silverlion;451209I've seen the bloat in official products, drives me nuts. In some settings it is important to have example NPC's (superhero games, you need villains.) Others? Not so much, a king here, a scoundrel there. About all you need of official NPC's.
I like sample NPCs in official products, especially those who showcase aspects of the setting, but I could not imagine granting any NPC plot immunity in a RPG.
The problem isn't really "NPC Bloat", that's one of those criticisms like "too many notes". The problem is the GM has the stupid interplay between all his wife's NPCs running the story. Combine good old Mary-Sue NPCing with the worst aspects of metaplot and you have a game that's unenjoyable. You can't take a shit without an NPC helping and you can't enter a bar unless they give you a mission to do so.
Construct a well thought-out, unranting, logical letter detailing all the problems you have with this campaign and e-mail it to everyone but the wife. :D
Somewhat echoing comments already made.
Simlasa, it's definitely not just you. In fact what you're describing sounds exactly like complaints I've read elsewhere about actual games and official settings. I remember somebody talking about a Vampire game like this, where PC are basically errand boys and get slapped down if they try to do anything independent. I've also read an account of a Legend of the Five Rings game that was similar (although it was a con game). Basically, to enlarge the topic slightly, this sounds like a common issue with '90s games and a major factor in the backlash of "player empowerment" over the last decade.
One general thought is that having über-powerful NPCs who user PCs as errand-boys is bogus...but having socially powerful (but mechanically average) NPCs is interesting, because it creates a transactional relationship where the NPCs truly need the PCs, and they have something to offer. But the PCs can tell them to f*** off if they want to.
But for your game, if you don't drop out completely, I'm not sure the GM can easily get rid of the existing PCs or change how they operate. If that's the case, then if he's amenable, what I'd really suggest is buffing up your existing characters somehow so that they're at least on a par with the NPCs. The GM will then need to be aware that this will significantly change how the game works. In other words, whether by intention or accident, he's been getting away with controlling everything through the powerful NPCs. That's going to have to change.
Quote from: Ian Warner;451179Trust me Earp at least is not immune to lucky PCs. Mine attracted his attention after a crime spree and ended up gunning him down easily then setting him on fire so he didn't come back as a Harrowed.
Yeah... it's not so much a matter of whether my character could mechanically win out against him... the issue is that, in our campaign, Earp is somehow a member of the GM's wife's PC's extended family... also suspect that, being historical, the feeling is that he shouldn't become a casualty.
Anyway... I wrote a note to our alternate GM, a reasonable fellow, explaining my misgivings... couched in terms of 'what could I do to be better invested in the game and not feel like a follower?'.
I made NO mention at all of the GM's wife... but he certainly did in his reply to me... which pretty much backed up everything I'd been feeling... and then some.
So... we are continuing to discuss our options, how to broach the subject. We like the guy, and I've played with MUCH worse GMs... I don't think he has a clue there's anything wrong... and that's our fault as much as anyone's.
It's funny, because I've read about games where people complained about being led around by NPCs... but it took a long time for it to register with me that that is what's been going on.
I agree, though, that a setting rich with vibrant NPCs can be great...
Simlasa; it seems to me that the problem isn't "too many NPCs", in fact the problem is everything else you've detailed below.
I'm personally a big fan of the "cast of thousands" school of GMing; in my campaigns I try very hard to have all kinds of NPCs, tons of them, because if it is done right it is an excellent emulation tool. A western game is often the sort that positively requires such a thing.
The problem as I see it is that this concept requires a very particular mix of NPCs. Its ok to have a few that are far in advance of the PCs, though these should usually be set up in such a way that they are either peripheral or that their chance to rob the limelight from the PCs is minimized. The majority of the NPCs, however, should be people at or below the PCs' level.
Its ok, as I noted, to have very powerful NPCs, but you shouldn't give them script immunity. In western games I've run, for example, I've used both Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday. Because I tend to run "legendary" style western games, my version of Earp literally could not be hit by a bullet, and my version of Holliday literally couldn't miss when he shot at someone (though how well he hit could vary). This did a good job of emulating the kick-ass nature of these characters. It didn't mean, however, that you couldn't fuck them over six ways from sunday if you thought it through.
The problem you note about "rescuing someone" being the constant theme of the adventures strikes me as a profound lack of creativity on the GM's part. Nothing much there to do with the sheer number of NPCs.
The absolute core of your problems seems to be your points numbers 4 and 5. The fact that the NPCs are generally oriented to gravitate around only one PC, and that one being the GM's Wife to boot, is a very serious problem. Even worse than that, however, is the fact that the GM has tons of NPCs, but doesn't actually successfully run them. There's no point in having a cast of thousands if they all look, act and sound the same.
So yeah, the problem there is with bad GMing in all these other respects, and not with the core concept of an NPC-heavy game. My own experience tells me that this concept is not only sound, but if pulled off properly marks a huge difference between a mediocre campaign and a fantastic one.
RPGpundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;451349Simlasa; it seems to me that the problem isn't "too many NPCs"
Yeah, I've realized I phrased that badly... the 'bloat' is not their number but their prominence in the game, relative to the PCs. The number of them isn't what's extreme, it's that they're all on stage at once, crowding the rest of us out.
Thanks for letting me go on about this though... it's helped me clarify my thoughts on the matter and forge a way ahead. I'm hoping the players can assist the GM to make this a better campaign for all of us.
Talking to a GM about doing a bad job and getting a peaceful resolution can be difficult. This is worsened by the fact that your systemic examples are going to highlight that the problem is in how he portrays his wife's characters. Conflicts of interest can be a bitch.
You can try to be gentle. Absolutely do this privately. But there will still be a high chance of backfire in this case.
You may need a backup plan. The best route is, if other players have this problem as well, to simply request a new game, a new setting, and preferably have one in mind. If everyone says, "It was fun, but we want to try something new, would you keep GMing for us" most decent GMs will say yes and give it a try. If he says no, he probably wasn't going to be reasonable to begin with.
Incidentally, this lets you tackle the issue of resurgent NPCs one at a time if they crop up rather than asking the GM to discard the whole cast.