Hey guys, been reflecting on this one game I played in earlier this year, I'd like to know if I was the asshole.
So I was playing in this Draw Steel game, which is a lot like D&D. And in this GM's custom world, the big gimmick was these giant clockwork animals called the Gear Lords, who are like gods. They keep the world in one piece and look after the land and they're super duper important.
So the bad guys have been attacking the Gear Lords, and we the heroes have been saving them. And eventually we come to the Iguana Lord's domain, which is a big volcano that's erupting because the Iguana Lord is in trouble. And we actually meet the BBEG for the first time, but we're losing because we're low on resources and we're not being very tactical. And I'm giving the party healing and saying "run away", and we survive long enough that the BBEG leaves because he doesn't wanna get blowed up by the volcano.
So the volcano is erupting and it's gonna come and turn the Iguana Lord to scrap. But I'm a magical healer with all of these teleports and buff spells, and I think I can save it. And in this moment, I can kinda tell that I think we're supposed to lose here. The Iguana Lord is scripted to die. But I don't want to. And I'm like "Isn't there something I can do? Can I spend a few more minutes trying to save it?" And the GM relents, and he lets us do a montage test to save the Iguana Lord and help it stop the volcano. So the entire region is saved from disaster, yippee!
And I feel like the GM didn't want that option to be on the table. I feel like I kinda strongarmed him into letting us save the Iguana Lord.
Another moment from that campaign that really stands out to Me in My memory is this moment where an NPC (Who we suspected was the BBEG) was going on about this old hero from the previous generation who was super important in the lore and we all had a connection to and respected. And he's arguing that nobody can ever live up to this hero's example, so life is pointless and we shouldn't try to do good things.
And I speak up in character and I say "You're right, I can't be like that hero..." and the GM starts to reply but I continue: "I'm going to be better than him." And I can feel that he wasn't expecting that at all. The GM thought we were all going to agree with the maybe-BBEG's nihilism. I really don't think he was expecting that kind of shonen-protagonist energy I was bringing to the table.
And this moment stands out in My memory because a week after that session, a week until the following session, I get a private message from the GM saying I'm not in the game anymore. And I don't get a lot of details about why, most of the message is "no hard feelings" type stuff. But he does say that "the things we value in a TTRPG are quite different" and that we have incompatible narrative approaches. And he also had seen some of the stories I told from the game and felt I was unintentionally portraying him in a negative light. Which was very unintentional and I still don't fully understand.
I wish I had got a chance to talk about these issues with him, and I regret not communicating with him more when I had the chance. It has become clear in retrospect that he had way stronger feelings about all this than I did, and I didn't know. So that sucks, because I enjoyed playing in his game, and if a darker tone or more struggle before overcoming the bad guys is what he wanted, then I wish we had been able to do that.
As I write this I realise that you can't really tell if I was being too pushy about saving the Iguana Lord based on reading My memories any better than I can. So I guess I'm looking for is a kind word, and a suggestion of how to be more receptive to others' feelings. Which I do struggle with as an autistic being.
There are many philosophies about roleplaying, but generally, it's a collaborative storytelling exercise.
The GM presents a situation, it's up to the players to figure a way out. That means the GM doesn't get to judge the player's approach, only gets to make the world react according to an internal, consistent world logic. Sounds like what you did was consistent with your character. The how you did it is harder to ascertain.
This could have broken in a couple ways:
I'm guessing a bit of each.
Some systems are better at allowing the GM to control tone at the table, by allowing narrative to dictate the effect and difficulty / likelihood of consequences. Some are prescriptive (think D20 and their ilk, where roll results dictate narrative). Sounds like Draw Steel is more of the second nature, which makes such conflicts more likely. And if your GM avoids confrontation, it could be they were uncomfortable dealing with that conflict.
The cause and solution to 98% of table problems is communication. Don't leave things unsaid, even if you need to note it down to bring up after session. Use tools like Stars and Wishes to align everyone at the table after each session. And allow rulings and agreements at the table to trump rules as written.
If the table consensus then makes you not like your character anymore ("I thought I'd be able to do that, but not really"), talk to them about retiring or turning that into an NPC and creating a new one. Or perhaps you want a different game, but then you'd be leaving with clarity and without a bad taste in your mouth.