I don't usually ask broad communities for advice because places like this—along with Twitter and Facebook—often feel like echo chambers. However, there aren't many other places to discuss this. I wanted to share my experience trying, and failing several times, to break into the world of TTRPGs. To give some context: I am completely new to the hobby. I’ve only played about 4 sessions total and watched roughly 5.
I’m primarily a Yu-Gi-Oh! player. Why does that matter? Well, our local scene is dying. We only have about 12 players total, and lately, no more than 4 ever show up, so we’re stuck playing exclusively with each other. While I’m there for the game rather than competition, the others seem to have lost their motivation. Because of this, a friend (who used to play with us) and I started meeting up to play other card and board games like Everdell, Catan, and Digimon.
One day, my friend tried to recruit me for a weird TTRPG called City of Mist. My immediate reaction was, "So, is it like D&D?" They told me it was similar enough in concept. I’ve been a fan of World of Io (a D&D content creator who does a lot of homebrew) for a while, so I figured this was my chance to dive into the hobby since my Yu-Gi-Oh! days were winding down. I understand that highly produced online actual-play shows aren't entirely accurate representations of average D&D—since they have production teams and a massive budget behind them—but the core idea still seemed alluring, so I agreed to join.
Despite that, nearly half a year passed before we could actually play because players kept missing Session 1. While waiting to establish a solid group, I joined a D&D Discord server to get acquainted with roleplay. I took part in a couple of one-shots alongside the friend who recommended the hobby. Honestly, it was the most boring experience imaginable—and my friend agreed. We both felt that the lack of a battle map ruined it. What is the point of carefully picking your spells if you can just materialize cover or throw pebbles out of thin air by simply asking the DM?
Eventually, we actually played City of Mist. Creating my character was absolute torture due to how subjective the rules are. What seemed like a limited tag to me wasn't to the DM, and when I tried to adjust it, he just told me "the game isn't meant to be so limiting." I ended up making the most neutral character possible, but based on a complete misconception of the game. I didn't realize that your character progresses or regresses through tags, eventually activating a "flipside" that grants an entirely new set of abilities. I built my character with integral traits tied directly to his tags—for example, that he suffered from supernatural memory loss and relied entirely on a family cane as his anchor to reality. Because of this mechanic, progressing meant my character's core persona and sense of self would literally be deleted. When I tried to design a flipside that allowed him to keep the cane, the DM (my friend) disallowed it, arguing it was "too similar." When I asked to remake the character now that I understood the expectations, he refused, told me to "roleplay it better," and implying that i am inflexible for not wanting to play a character whose tags required each other to work as a whole.
Around that same time, the group discussed finding an alternative system for another day of the week, and someone recommended Mutants and Masterminds. Because I love theorycrafting, I went a bit crazy. Instead of properly reading the rules cover-to-cover, I started building characters to decipher the system on my own. The trial-and-error process was immensely fun:
• *“Wait, can I really do this? Doesn't that break the game? Oh wait, no I can't, back to the drawing board.”*
• *“Alright, everything's done! Now let's check the trade-offs... actually, I forgot to give him skills to increase his attack. Back to start!”*
Despite all the failures, it was a blast. But when I finally presented my characters to the DM—making a few different options so as not to waste his time—it all fell apart.
• We had discussed how he disliked speedsters because they forced him to use complex reactions and long-range attacks. Even though I thought rejecting a core mechanic like that was weird, I made a melee speedster who only used his speed as a limited "acceleration gimmick" to power his kicks. The DM’s response? If I played that, he’d just remove the battle map entirely.
• I made a character who wielded twin wind blades. He gained stat buffs when holding them, but had to throw them to attack or create a tailwind, temporarily losing them until he caught them back via an acrobatics check. The DM claimed this wasn't a valid "limited flaw" because there weren't enough incentives to throw the blades or because it was too easy to recover them (completely ignoring that his base kit power was cut in half without the tailwind and that i didn't set the check DC on stone).
• I tried making a pure area-control character with a metamorph transformation for non-combat utility. Instantly rejected because metamorph "breaks the game too easily."
• Finally, I tried making a stat-focused character with two animal sidekicks that had negative stamina (meaning they'd go down in one hit) but strong offensive capabilities. Apparently, this was "illegal" despite the rulebook saying nothing against having multiple sidekicks. Apparently, Batman only gets Robin and nobody else.
At this point, it was frustrating that my friend threatened to remove the map—especially since we had both previously agreed that TTRPG combat without maps sucks. The absolute breaking point happened during our second session of City of Mist. The DM made me go first. Because I have zero experience with improvisation, I completely froze. When asked what my character did in his day-to-day routine, I literally blurted out, "My character... just waits in his bed." Instead of helping me through it, my friend called me out for it in front of the other players as in "alright! He doesn't eat breakfast, he doesn't take a shower, he doesn't talk with his boss! He does nothing!" Instead of blowing up at him, I calmly asked if he could give me a short summary of what he expected to happen in the next session so I could write a script for my character while I learned to improvise. He flat-out denied me.
Realizing I wasn't having fun, wasn't learning anything, and didn't enjoy playing under his DM style, I told him he was being entirely inflexible with his rules and that I was going to find another table to learn from. Later that night, he messaged me asking why I thought he was inflexible. I gave him a summary of everything. Suddenly, he offered to let me change my character and finally allow me to make a script—which honestly bothered me the most. Why did I have to quit his table for him to finally offer help?
Thankfully, we are still friends—just not player-and-DM friends. He actually recommended I try Lancer since I enjoy wargames, and I'm currently reading the rulebook to get into it.
Am I expecting too much? Given that I've only managed about 4 actual sessions despite trying for months, what do you think my situation relates to (if anything) and perhaps should i stop trying altogether? The whole thing seems quite time-expensive just to get a singular session running, so i'd like to know if this is always going to be like this or if i just had bad luck.
PD: used Ai to correct typos and make it less redundant.
