I hooked up with a gaming group and have been meeting mostly weekly now for about two months. We're playing an intrique/political game in a campaign setting designed by both the GM and players (not me, I arrived shortly after, but before the campaign started). It is different, but I am very interested in playing it, but we've had some troubles getting going. Part of it is that its a new campaign, and part of it is adding a new guy to a new campaign, and part of it is life interfering with a few members ability to participate, but a large part was the game system.
We were using FantasyCraft. I don't have anything against FantasyCraft, and I love SpyCraft (not that I've ever had the chance to play), but its D&D 3.75E framework doesn't really incorporate what we were trying to do. So we made a switch to Houses of the Blooded. It was a little on the fly, from the gamers standpoint, but I think we all agreed to a mini-reboot of the game using the system. However disaster struck.
Due to many factors, mostly human, we ended up killing everyone in the party in two hours without any combat. I've been thinking about this for a few days and I still am not sure how to explain what I'm feeling. I feel that if I point out what went wrong, people will become defensive, thinking that I am finger pointing when I'm not.
Being the new guy makes me feel like I shouldn't say anything. But I want to have fun and I want everyone else's fun to increase as well.
That's a hard one. Is it a case of having an out-of-character discussion with the other players and the GM along the lines of, "Wow, that didn't go to plan - how do we not do that in the future."?
ReplyDeleteBy opening the discussion with a question, maybe that will encourage people to analyse their own actions and see what went wrong.
Hope that helps.