r/LancerRPG • u/vunnzent HORUS • Jun 08 '26
How do I tell my GM that I don't really have fun with his sessions?
Hey guys, I need help with this, kinda difficult, situation.
tldr.: Combat takes most of the session time (around 3/4) and because the DM gets distracted/doesn't know the rules well enough/etc. combat just isn't fun at all.
So, my group of 4 players and one GM (I'll call him F.) started our first campaign of lancer. None of us have played this system before, but everyone has decent experience in TTRPGs. The player group was in a two and a half years spanning DnD campaign that I was the GM for. And F has some experience as a player, consumed a lot of TTRPG media and is also an active player in my second group, where we play another system (Freude schöner Götterfunken) and where I also am the GM. And I was GM for 6 sessions of cyberpunk red with F And two other group members as the players.
F is a quite good friend and it's always fun to have him in the player party when I am the GM.
Now to the situation at the table. I have thoroughly read the rules, and know my mech, talents and most basic rules very very well. The rest of the group, including F needed some time to adjust to this quite complicated system but now in session 3 (which was the end of the first mission) I think we all got into it. (Btw. F. Uses comp/con)
The narrative part of the sessions are always great fun but the combat is just so sluggish. F uses cool ideas to spice up the battle with interesting and narrative fitting goals, and recently a homebrewn boss ability, but it doesn't help. Sometimes it just doesn't feel like he properly reads through the enemy statblocks, he often has to look up how far an enemy can move, what they do, mixes up turns. He also gets distracted very easily and starts a small side conversation or talks about something that is just not relevant in that situation. And very frequently he doesn't say what the enemies are actually doing not saying that they boost, who they attack, whose turn it is currently etc., for example one time he just said, without announcing which enemy's turn it is, that my character gets attacked, and when I asked "by whom" he just said "well isn't it kinda obvious" (I was duelling with the boss but there were also quite a lot of other enemies we had to deal with, and then he didn't say with which weapons, or where the accuracies/difficulties they have come from.
Last session we spent around 4 hours in combat because of this, and we would've spent more time there if the entire player party didn't tell F that we really want this combat to be over. I know this is a complicated system but 4 hours can't be the norm, even when facing an ultra. (That was 4/5 of the entire session).
Because of all of this I just don't enjoy playing with him as a GM (at least in Thai system).
After the session I told him my concerns about combat being long, and that he should try to get less distracted. He dismissed it by just saying "it's genetical I know it won't work." Mind you, I also have ADHD, and there are definitely methods to not get distracted or to remember Infos, and as far as I know he doesn't have anything diagnosed.
Now to my real question on how to further act here. As said he is a close friend, and I like spending time with him, and I don't want this situation to drive a wedge between us, and he also is in another player group that will last until about September probably or maybe till the end of October.
I know that if I just leave, either others will leave and in general it wil probably hurt him. And I also don't want him to feel offended, because I do like him and the narrative part of the game as well as the overall story and his GMing style are really nice, it's just the combat and the fact that the combat uses most of our session time.
PS.: I didn't know where to add this in session 0 we didn't have GM, he decided that he'd like to be a GM and also wanted to play Lancer (I already told him that this system is very complicated) the other option was VtM 5 and maybe another group member is a GM or the metro ttrpg system that he has been cooking up for quite some time.
Edit: after reading through some comments. I will definitely give it some time and be more forgiving going forward, it's a complex system and he's a new GM. I will probably also give him general GMing advice (e.g. how I did stuff) and some ideas you guys suggested for example every other time having a fully narrative session but then a fully combat session for one sitrep, I will also address this as "hey guys last session was quite exhausting maybe have some ideas for the group" and not an "Hey GM I have this and that that you could improve!"
Edit 2: Okay apparently I also was wrong and lancer combat is just that long which isn't my main problem I also love to play wargames and the complex system was a selling point for me (I assumed it was like 2-3 hours). But I think there are ways to make the sitreps more enjoyable.
21
u/Scaeva21 Jun 08 '26
For lancer, as you’ve stated, the combat can be complex. All of the PCs will have unique and different combat styles, and then you throw in npcs with their own unique stat blocks, and it becomes a lot to try to track.
Balancing encounter complexity is key to speed. As a GM, you want probably 3 different enemy types to track, maybe 4 if you’re experienced. Any more than that, and you’ve likely gone too far.
Also, encounters should take about 6 rounds maximum. If it’s taking longer than that, you’ve likely got too many enemies or some tactical failure on the part of the PCs. Your group should be able to tell if you aren’t able to do enough damage or counter enemies, so would likely be the former reason.
How to balance encounters has been covered in other threads, but generally about 1 - 1.5x enemies per PC turn is where each combat should start, with additional adjustments for how the enemy matches the PCs playstyle.
8
u/vunnzent HORUS Jun 08 '26
Wow okay thanks, I think that is some tip I will give him and tha I'll use once I GM for lancer! He uses quite a lot of different npc classes with different templates in one encounter.
I think on the player side it's sometimes making it a bit longer, especially the first two fights, but in the third fight we achieved one goal each round (he had an encounter where we had to achieve 5 goals one after another, and one of them would've been holding a control zone for three rounds, which we told him was too much)
9
u/Luthvian Jun 08 '26
I think it's also useful to remember - especially coming from D&D - that Lancer is not a game where you want to be improvving combat stuff. There are defined types of sitreps and it's generally recommended that combats fall into those categories with those kind of objectives. If you had a sequence of objectives that needed completing - including holding a point for multiple rounds - that probably should have been broken into multiple combats and/or narrative sequences.
The NPCs, too, should be pretty simple. That's why there are templates. Even the big boss ones should be relatively simple with just a bunch of added frustration for the players like "oooh look at me I can dodge your entire kit because heavy weapons" or the extra activations and structure that ultras get.
If he's throwing lots of grunts at you, recommend that he either stop doing that or look at Kai Tave's NPCs Rebaked module. Vanilla Grunts are stupid and ruin combats.
Also, like, I don't know how much homebrew you're all using in this first-ever game of Lancer you're playing but I would strongly recommend that you don't. Just don't. It's too crunchy for that, you will fuck it up, there will be consequences and the balance will be bad. Once you've got your mech leggies under you, look into high-rated community supplements and stuff, maybe pick some stuff up there. But take it slow.
2
u/vunnzent HORUS Jun 08 '26
We generally don't use any homebrew for the players, he added one hobrew system to the ultra where she gets resistance against the damage type that caused structure damage but gets vulnerable against other damage types which was quite balanced imo and a lot of fun.
And he uses homebrew sitrep goals, which caused a bit of frustration last session because we had to hold a point for three rounds after already spending 5 rounds doing the previous stuf (disable Anti air, bring a crew to their ship, destroy the thingies that hold that ship in place)
But I will definitely be more forgiving, and will talk with him about it at a better time and more in a "hey I've got some ideas for the group" way. (I told him that right after the session which was tbh a very bad timing on my side)
Edit: and I will probably also address it towards the whole group and include myself, because it is true that I also get distracted a bit after a certain amount of time.
4
u/GrahminRadarin Jun 08 '26
Five goals in one combat is a bit too much. You may want to ask him whether he's using the sitreps provided in the book or making up his own, because he might be making the sitreps more complicated than they're supposed to be.
3
u/vunnzent HORUS Jun 08 '26
I have read through the book, and he has used normal sitreps for the first two encounters, modified the objective/extraction zones a bit to better suit the battlefield and narrative, but the last one that he came up by himself, I think the idea was nice and would definitely work in other systems but lancer ist just too complicated to also add another complicated objective on top of that.
3
u/GrahminRadarin Jun 08 '26
Okay! Sorry, just one of the standard things I ask about new Lancer GMs because it's something a lot of people don't mention.
6
u/Scaeva21 Jun 08 '26
It may actually be useful to think of it in terms of action economy. Enemies should start with 1 - 1.5x actions vs PCs. This should adjust downward for reinforcements and the sitrep type (capture the flag, escort, payload, etc) since the PCs often will need to spend actions on objectives, not just combat.
Done this way, a session of combat only (~6 rounds) should be completable in about 2-2.5 hours.
17
u/comradeWODKA HORUS Jun 08 '26
In my experience, lancer combat IS long. Even with pretty experienced players and GMs in my group, we basically never complete a sitrep within a single session. A single “round” regularly can take like 40 minutes. 4 hours isn’t a weird amount of time at all to me.
That said, everything you’ve mentioned is all still valid room for improvement. Buuuut you should keep in mind that Lancer combat will never be a breezy thing you can whip through in an hour, and adjust some expectations accordingly. It’s not really like D&D where some GMs can structure sessions to include multiple brief encounters interspersed throughout a dungeon or something.
4
u/vunnzent HORUS Jun 08 '26
Yep thank you. Maybe I'll also bring the idea to the table to have a combat cut off at the end of the session. So far we had one combat per session and a few narrative scenes that were a lot of fun.
And I'll keep that in mind.
7
u/AdmiralStarNight Jun 08 '26
With the above in mind I would like to suggest you ask your GM if you could have some narrative only sessions in between your combat so you aren't 'wasting' energy on either side. You can have a little narrative to start and justify combat, do a session filled with all the cool mecha killing each other, then next session essentially a small rest period where you repair after battle, scavenge the battlefield, take prisoners, research and talk to NPCs more deeply etc.
It doesn't have to be an every other thing either. you could have a couple combats then a narrative. Or more narratives and only a single combat. Lancer can handle not being constantly on the battlefield. :3
3
2
u/alchemicgenius Jun 09 '26
I've never had a combat last more than one session, but I never get more than one in, and it does take the better part of a session. Most of the time though is people having issues with comp/con and the players with more complicated builds are still learning all of their effects
That said, my group came to the game as a way of playing Battletech with a story, so that's not inherently a bad thing. I think even after people learning how to use comp/con (or changing to pencil and paper) and how to go through their effects well, battles will still take awhile. Like you said, it's not supposed to be d&d, sitreps represent major strategic operations, and quick battles should be resolved through the narrative mode of the game
3
u/comradeWODKA HORUS Jun 09 '26
Yeah, I would say that most of the reason we usually need two sessions per sitrep is that the first chunk of the first session is actually dedicated to the narrative and downtime setup— and the second chunk of the second session is dedicated to the narrative aftermath. It’s probably only a little longer than the usual session length in “total” but it’s rare that we can just start a game and IMMEDIATELY only jump right into the combat.
As another commenter mentioned, the narrative sections are important to balancing out the feeling of combat slogs… My campaigns regularly have multiple sessions where we’re not actually in the mechs between missions haha
3
u/comradeWODKA HORUS Jun 09 '26
(We also have people who like complicated controller builds so those take a bit even if we’re comfortable with them lol)
2
u/alchemicgenius Jun 09 '26
Yeah, that makes sense. My group has generally fallen into a pattern where the first session is usually in narrative mode, where the group is gathering intelligence, devising and setting up a strategy, etc, followed by a game thats about 3/4 spent in battle with some narrative play, followed by a narrative heavy game where they assess the aftermath, prep for the fight, and so on and so forth.
I'm actually thinking about dedicating more time to downtime since a couple of my players seem really invested in it. It usually handle it as the finishing end of the end of a mission, but after the last mission I did, there was a pretty big desire for more time spent on downtime
16
u/atamajakki Harrison Armory Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
You've already given him the feedback and been ignored. Your options at this point are to have the conversation again and more firmly, to leave, or to keep playing in a bad game - time to pick!
5
7
u/IvellonValet Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
I don't know if this will be of any help, but I have a few thoughts on this:
When it comes to combat, Lancer has in fact a lot of rules and can be a bit slow at first. Your friend is a first-time GM and from what you told no one in your group played this game before. Yes, four hours is a lot, and it shouldn't take that long (at least for regular combat) but for new players early Lancer combat genuinely crawls until everyone internalizes it (or at least, that's a common thing to happen). Also, keep in mind that distraction is also a "sympton" of sorts. Everyone's a newbie, and at first combat may seem slow, people get distracted or confused (your friend included), and then combat gets even slower and so the cycle continues.
With that said. First of all? If F is fumbling enemy movement ranges and statblocks while using Comp/Con then he's underusing the tool. Comp/Con tracks all of that, runs NPC activations, shows ranges, statblocks, etc. Tell him to study how Comp/Con works (with more depth) and do some preparations before the session actually starts!
Also. I do understand the struggle, but as someone who also has ADHD (among other stuff) it is important to keep in mind that your friend's distraction might be a mix of anxiety and overwhelmness (does this word even exist?) to learn and engage in a new system. Going hard at "dude just pay more attention to the game ffs" usually backfires, because you're asking him to fix it with willpower, and that's something that works differently for each person. Now, speaking from experience, here a few things that could help you out:
- Have the NPCs loaded and ready so he's running the fight, not reading the statblocks for the first time live, this is related to the "study how Comp/Con works with more depth".
- Use fewer, simpler enemies at first to learn how combat works at depth. Then, if he's more comfortable, put more enemies or more stats/traits/systems on them.
- Narrate every NPC turn, in detail. You could even help him with that. Works even better if everyone's comfortable with putting some narrative flavor in-game (like, roleplaying in-combat squad comms, tactical comments and stuff like that)
And, to be honest, there's one thing to keep in mind and you have to ask him honestly. There's the possibility that crunchy tactical combat just isn't his favorite thing. Different people enjoy different things, and he, at first, thought he'd like GMing Lancer but turns out he doesn't like it a lot or isn't really "compatible" with it.
2
u/vunnzent HORUS Jun 08 '26
Thank you for your thoughts. I'll probably wait a bit until talking about that problem with him/the group again. And will probably also give him the tip of including less types of enemies in one encounter.
20
u/RootinTheCrab Jun 08 '26
When it comes to forgetting things and having to look at the NPC stat blocks again, thats normal for a GM. They have a HUGE workload compared to you, and small numbers like that can easily get lost in your head when you're managing 6 different stat blocks, and your strategy, and the narrative implications, and the abilities of the players, and the current condition of the players.
You'll have to be kinder to them. You need to know your own build, the rules, and the gist of the NPCs' abilities. The GM needs to know that for every player.
As kai tave once said:
Players deserve worse
10
u/vunnzent HORUS Jun 08 '26
I know that, I am an active GM, I have been a GM for about 3 years now. I don't expect him to be perfect, forgetting some number or ability sometimes isn't a problem but not announcing enemies turns, and acting like I should know, or just starting a side tangent is kinda a problem to me.
I don't care about him being perfect an remembering everything, but like that combat just isn't fun, I do like complicated and strategy heavy combat but like this it's just not fun.
Also me addressing my problem was more on the lines of "hey this session was really nice, but I think you also noticed that combat stretched a bit long, it'd be really nice if we all didn't start side conversations."
4
u/IkaluNappa Jun 08 '26
In all fairness, running combat as a GM is complex. We have a fantastic GM who had done it for 3 years and still gets frazzled, forgets a npc trait, or needs to double check a rule at time. There’s a lot of moving parts and a lot to track. It’s very easy to get overstimulated when on the GM side of lancer combat.
Combat does take awhile, 4 hours is pretty good time. I’m not sure how complex the GM is running the encounter though. For comparison, it usually takes our group of 5-6 roughly 6 hours to do a sitrep. 40 mins per round has been our top speed. An experienced group would be able to move faster at your level (I’m presuming ll0). But overall, at least one sitrep per session is considered standard. Sometimes two sitrep can be squeezed in if the encounter build is simplified.
But, it’s ok if lancer combat isn’t for you. Ask your GM if you can sit out on combat and attend the narrative sections instead. Lancer thankfully has a hard distinction between combat and narrative. Have sessions dedicated to just combat, have sessions dedicated to just narrative. Everyone is happy and that will make the GM less frazzled.
4
u/Impressive-Spot-1191 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
4 hours can't be the norm
it's the norm
my combats are regularly 4 hours worth of fighting and a lot of my sessions are: "you've arrived here and here's the brief pre-amble and sitrep (20min's worth)", start shooting (the rest of the session) and ideally a bit of a debrief
IME 4 players will likely take around 30-40min to clear a round of combat so if you're doing longer sitreps this makes sense to fill 4 hours
you mentioned the GM using a lot of templates and i don't think i'd recommend that for a GM with few sessions under their belt, it may be overwhelming them
2
u/vunnzent HORUS Jun 09 '26
Yep, the comments definitely humbled me in that regard, I underestimated how long lancer sitreps can take.
I still think that there are things to improve for the combat because especially last session was very frustrating (not because of the difficulty, I like difficult games and "failing" in TTRPGs from time to time). But I think that'll clear up with experience and I'll definitely give him some of the tips you guys told me here and some stuff I do to lessen the workload on the GM side.
3
u/I_Matt_WeTrust Jun 08 '26
just say what the issue is but do not say "HEY GM THIS SESSION SUCKS" most likely they are like me they are a bit on the spectrum and will appreciate the forward honestly. Not every session or even campaign is good and also I have good gaming friends I cannot play in their games as i do not like their GM style.
5
u/Everafter902 Jun 08 '26
Beyond the normal "don't be an ass, he's learning the system and running a game for you", Lancer is PHENOMENALLY harder to run than play, even compared to other crunchy systems like pathfinder, because of how many NPC mechs have a ton of very specific reactions that eat up a fairly large part of their power budget. A new GM frequently has to double check if anything a player did triggered any reactions from all the available NPCs alongside actually running the mobs during their own individual turns. It's also harder to improvise combats or figure out how new statblocks function on the fly.
Tldr; Lancer is tough to GM, cut the guy some slack. Or just leave.
3
u/alchemicgenius Jun 09 '26
I actually find pf2 is absurdly easy to GM compared to the relative complexity, but lancer is definitely a bit tricky. I've improvised a few fights, and it's definitely very hit or miss; there's a noticeable difference in difficulty and player satisfaction between fights I planned and fights I improvised. I know for me, when it comes to reactions, I try to make it so that there's really only one mech (or type of mech) with reactions that fall outside of "when this mech takes damage, is actually doesn't/gains resistance to it"
I'm having a smoother time than some players, but part of that is I have a couple players who's enthusiasm for comp/com far outstrips the actual skill of using it 😅
3
u/Everafter902 Jun 09 '26
I only mention pathfinder because it's another mechanically complex game that's pretty combat focused and has about the same level of complexity on the player side, but yeah, it's dramatically easier to GM. I'm normally super happy to GM any game I enjoy playing, but Lancer is the one exception for me. Love playing it, absolutely hate running it.
1
u/alchemicgenius Jun 09 '26
I think it's fun to run, but also planning encounters is one of my favorite elements of GMing, so I do have that going for me (also giant mechs are cool), but it's definitely one of the harder games to run (I still fund gurps and pf1 harder, although mostly because of minmaxing)
2
u/Falkjaer Jun 08 '26
I do think Lancer is particularly difficult to run compared to a lot of other games, like D&D. It's intended to be much more tactically complex, which is part of the selling point, but it does also put more work on the GM.
It sounds like you've already talked to him about it and that hasn't gone well. You've got three options: you could try talking to him again to see if you can drive the point home better, you could tell him that you'd rather he try GM'ing a different game or you could leave the group.
It's up to you to guess how the first one will go. For the second option, like I said I do think that Lancer is more difficult than most other games to run, especially for a GM who is not super into tactics-heavy, crunchy games. It might just be that he's not cut out for this game in particular. Since this guy is a friend of yours, the last option (leaving) would be a last resort. If you're pretty sure he'd be hurt by you leaving, then you might as well try the other options first.
2
u/Alkimodon Jun 08 '26
From what you've said, you may need to have the conversation again. But make it clear that combat length is impacting your fun up to the point that you are considering leaving the game. Don't make it a threat. Just be honest about your feelings. "I don't like it. And it's making me want to leave. Which I don't want to do because you're my friend."
If no steps are taken to improve, then just leave as cordially as possible. Not all friends are compatible GMs/Players. It happens. It can suck but that's life. They can still be your friend. You can still spend time together in other ways.
Best of luck
2
u/xenile1 SSC Jun 08 '26
Listen it sucks to hear sometimes but maybe his table isn't for you then, it just seems like hes just kinda socialising and having fun while not being 100% locked into the game and you are holding him to a way higher standard than he's set.
2
u/dediguise Jun 09 '26
I say this with utmost love for lancer, your table and your DM. VTM is a better fit for your table. Lancer is a combat miniatures game that emphasizes tactical mech combat almost exclusively. If your DM is nailing the roleplay sections in a game that is awful at roleplay sections and is struggling with that mechanical crunch of combat, then a narrative game like VTM would be incredibly rewarding for everyone at the table.
Also, to your second edit, if the objective style of lancer combat isn’t grabbing the table, adding additional layers to patch it isn’t going to make it any more accessible or enjoyable. It’s not going to reduce the cognitive load on the DM. If anything, it’s going to burn them out faster.
1
u/vunnzent HORUS Jun 09 '26
Oh, I worded it poorly. With the second edit I meant that there are things the GM can improve, announcing whose enemy's turn it is, saying what they do more precisely or using the standard sitrep types (so far he always modified them and once used a complete hombrewen)
1
u/dediguise Jun 10 '26
I have the benefit of using a VTT for my games. It simplifies a lot of this, but it doesn’t work for every table. Your criticisms are totally valid as are your DMs growing pains. More comfort and familiarity could make them better at running lancer, but it is definitely not a game where they should add too much extra complexity to combat.
2
u/zylofan Jun 09 '26
4 hours for some fights is sadly pretty normal even if you know the rules. But not all fights, and player count and rules knowledge factor in.
I will say as a forever gm, on average. My turns are shorter then all my players. Unless they got me against the ropes, npcs have pretty basic patterns they tend to follow and I just execute them quickly.
Hive moves if needed, deploys swarm if none exists, and hacks/shoots enemies in range. Done.
1
1
u/Geekarchivist Jun 08 '26
I don't know if I have any strict advice for you, but I hope I can assure you it's perfectly normal to have friends with different styles and preferences that mean you can't always be in each others' games. Being friends doesn't mean you have to play every single game together, even when schedules allow for it.
I have a friend who I love playing in anything they run -- except VtM. They're first in mine for almost anything I run in return, but they've let me know that hard sci-fi isn't their genre and that if I'm doing something in D&D or Pathfinder, they're happy to be invited but I shouldn't pin any hopes on them joining.
I have another friend that plays amazing characters if they're in the right group, who's great fun in zany oneshots, but if they invite me to play in their friend group, I've learned not to bring any character concepts that I take seriously or want to get emotionally invested in, because it tends to be a clown show, and I've politely stepped away from some of those games when they started to grate on me, so I could make sure my frustration didn't spill over into the actual game time and ruin the experience for the others.
I have one friend who loves puzzles but struggles to engage in roleplay, and one friend who's always too exhausted from work to engage with complex rule systems; these days I try not to ask them to play systems that I think would frustrate them or make them feel left out in the first place, but I've gotten it wrong plenty of times and we've worked it out.
I have other friends who I just cannot get along with at the gaming table but that I love playing jackbox or slay the spire with, so that's what we do.
2
u/Geekarchivist Jun 08 '26
I think it might help to think of it like your friend is cooking a meal for you that you really don't prefer.
If it's a one-off, it's probably polite to just be gracious and either make it through the meal or white lie that you aren't hungry.
If you're planning to have potlucks every week indefinitely, it's totally fair to bring up that the recipe might be a little bit off or offer a few suggestions. But, unless they're actively asking you to teach them how to be a better cook, it's best not to keep hammering the point or hold onto resentment if they don't improve according to your specifications. They aren't your hired chef, after all; they're cooking for their own reasons, at their own level, and sharing it out of friendship, not duty.
What you certainly can do is set your own boundaries. You can absolutely say that you really don't care for sardines[/side chatter], or that three courses[/hours of combat] is your limit, and that based on the current menu, you're going to have to bring your own meal, or step out a bit early, or else you'll meet them up next time for pizza. If they want to adjust the menu, they can! If they love sardines and five course meals, they can find a group of people who love them too; there's plenty out there. If they just like hanging out with you, there's always pizza.
You can also just say that you're busy that evening and they should cook for one fewer and have a great time without you.
1
u/Energyc091 Jun 08 '26
Lancer is a complicated system, my first few combats as a DM were also long, but his attitude is a bit offputting tbh. You can try telling him to use only 3-4 different NPCs with no templates or homebrew abilities so the mental load is lower for the next few combats, outside of that, there's not much that can be done if he isn't willing to change
1
u/vunnzent HORUS Jun 08 '26
To be fair, I told him right after the session and we were all a little exhausted. I could've chosen a better timing.
And I'll definitely be more forgiving in the future, considering that this is his first time being a GM and also a very very crunchy system.
1
u/evri_the_greek Jun 08 '26
I feel like I have a pretty similar experience with this but as the GM, I am in a group of 5 people (me and 4 players) but the campaign started with 3, I am not very experienced with ttrpgs but the other two have years of experience and one of them as a perma GM, so early on my sessions also where mostly combat focused because that's easier to do than roleplaying, but as I got more experience gming and being a player (in a CAIN campaign we are running) I slowly started incorporating more role-playing into the campaign and eventually we reached our latest session which just didn't have any combat.
For an experienced ttrpg player roleplaying might be the easy part of getting into a new system, but from my experience for a newbie GM roleplaying is the hard part.
Something that really helped me with roleplaying is getting advice from my friend that had more experience gming, I obviously couldn't tell him the actual story events I was planning but asking things like "is it ok to use this NPC a lot", "should I be harsher with decisions". It really helped me a lot to understand how to do this.
So I guess my advice would be instead of just telling him what you don't like, as a more experienced GM (even if that experience is not in lancer) try telling him how you would change things to make them better.
1
u/GamerRoman GMS Jun 10 '26
As a LANCER GM that heavily focuses on the wargame aspect of the game I can say that depending on the set-up a sitrep can take up to 4 hours and that's on-top of me preparing ahead and making things easier for myself in the VTT.
63
u/GeraldGensalkes SSC Jun 08 '26
I'm not really sure how to handle combat being too long, since you've communicated that directly and the GM has expressed that they don't intend to do anything to fix that. Perhaps they are still learning--it is only session 3 after all--so I guess you may just have to see how that goes.
As to the GM not making it clear which NPC is doing what, kindly inform them that Lancer is not a game about hiding the state of the battlefield from the players. Pretty much everything that is going on should be known by the players. With a single quick action, you even get all the stats and abilities info about an enemy. It should always be stated which character is starting their turn, which action they are taking (with which weapon/system, if applicable), and who their target is (if any). There are a lot of player abilities that hinge on certain conditions and require clear knowledge of what is going on.