>Campaign ends.
>Ok I have idea 1, idea 2, idea 3 and idea 4 for new campaigns.
>Crickets
>Ok I have idea 4.
>One (1) response.
>Actually I liked Idea 2.
Why are players like this?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
>Campaign ends. >Ok I have idea 1, idea 2, idea 3 and idea 4 for new campaigns. >Crickets. >Ok I have idea 4.
Players are shit. Get a group that makes everyone DM in a rotation.
They probably don't want to have another game with you but are to socially inept to spell it out.
You should have asked: "ok, who's next on taking the GM sit?" first
Run Hexcrawl world.
Tpk or players want new characters.
They continue in the exact same world, they can visit the same locations or not.
100% do not give a duck, it's all the same world.
You're in a town, there's a dungeon nearby, go there if you like, or don't,
I'll roll the weather for the month while you figure out what to do.
homie, everybody knows people need to be in the mood for the idea of the game. Try to make subliminal manipulation of their tastes so they can embrace your idea.
Public school damaged their social skills and now having a constructive group conversation where people are expected to respond honestly and clearly when asked a question is nearly impossible.
>players insist they play in a sandbox game
>offer them many different quest hooks
>they follow the last one offered
>don't improvise at all
>don't interact with any part of the sandbox game's factions or markets or figures
>i decide to basically 90% railroad
>players tell me it was a really interesting game and want more of this "sandbox"
Why are players like this?
This goy right.
Our education and job system teaches people that having initiative is bad because it means you're the first to blame when things go south.
People has phonia to being held accountant for anything.
>People has phonia to being held accountant for anything.
Words to live by.
Butchered the english language there but you got what I meant.
People convinced themselves that the only winning move ia to not play, and the moment aomeone tries (and fails) they quickly go call them out and point at how they fricked up.
As my old college headteacher put it: "If you wanna stand above others, you either climb the ladder yourself or kick others down, but only one of these is making you go higher and higher"
I agree with you, the wording was just funny.
I think this age of media consoomerism also did a number on people's psyche: they learn that, in order to get their dopamine hit, they just have to sit still and have content fed to them, basically turning them from potential entertainers of each other into content vampires.
>main campaign goes on hiatus due to finishing another arc
>players co-DMing our secondary campaign are still working on the arc in their campaign
>tertiary DM bought a couple of modules he wants to run us through
>it's Hoard of the Dragon Queen, starting at level 1, no modifications
Yeah, looks like I won't be playing for a few weeks at least.
What's wrong with hoard?
I don't get it. Did you play it already or something?
socially inept morons are draw to ttrpg like flies to shit.
>have an idea for a campaign
>have an idea for custom mechanics for the campaign
>refine all the details, both mechanical and story
>have lots of fun designing it all
>actual DMing turns out to be disappointing cause you're shit at live storytelling and acting
same but
>actual GMing turns out to be dissappointing because players have snail pacing and don't engage with anything
I don't understand players that spend all week saying they wanna play to then sit there silently and "I don't know what to do" for 3 hours.
They’re npcs IRL
Design for the players you have, not the players you want
that's why you find yourself a person to co-DM with
just make sure you're not both autistic
t.works on my machine
>a person to co-DM with
how does it work
It's like normal DMing, but you have an additional person to help you with planning and running the game. In our case I let my partner do most of the story telling and conversations, I only help with those when multiple NPCs would be in a scene or if she thinks that my voice would be a better fit. I tend to plan most of the battle maps, encounters, homebrew items and creatures.
For the setting itself it's a collaborative effort, we both contribute with locations, traditions, NPCs and so on.
We had some kinks to work out at first and we butted heads couple of times but overall I find it to be way better and the output itself is higher quality.
Pro tip: use something like Google Drive for your documentation and keep track of what documents have been modified and by whom. For us it really streamlined the process.
>just make sure you're not both autistic
well nevermind
at least make sure you have different kinds of autism
>actual DMing turns out to be disappointing cause you're shit at live storytelling and acting
Don't worry. Neither of those is a requirement for a good DM. DMing is quite literally just arbiting the rules and narrating the situation. You don't need to act out characters.
Such a nightmare when the GM only acts characters and story and handwaves rules because "they aren't important"
You don't need to but it is nice and encourages role-play
What's your definition of roleplaying, and why does the fact that the DM acts out NPCs encourage it more than if he didn't?
>why would direct dialogue between NPCs and PCs encourage more in-character dialogue at the table than the DM simply narrating the events and dice rolls?
Really curious about your games anon
>in-character dialogue
This is just one, extremely superficial and not-at-all definitive form of roleplaying.
>>in-character dialogue
>extremely superficial
NTA but do you expect the DM to build an entire set, put on a costume and stage a play for you or something? What sort of RPing are you expecting at a table?
>his group isn't larping
fricking casuals
The frick?
Playing your character (i.e. performing their role within the game) is roleplaying. The thief sneaking around and picking locks is roleplaying. The fighter swinging his sword at an orc is roleplaying, as is the magic user casting a spell. General exploration is also roleplaying.
Roleplaying is acting in-character, not acting out a character. You don't need to engage in in-character dialogue to act in-character; you just need to do what your character would do, and nine times out of ten that's baked into the actual RAW gameplay.
>role-playing is simply playing the game
God your games must be so dry
>The thief sneaking around and picking locks is roleplaying
Guess that one time I played a rogue/bard combo who was masquerading as a divination wizard investigator I never did much roleplaying because I did neither of those things.
Jumping on goombas when playing Mario is roleplaying
>doing the bare minimum required of you in order to play the game is rp
>character interactions are not
Was not aware casting mage armor is rp
no offence, most players don't care about your setting, it's like arguing between 4 different mcdonalds you want to go to, at the end of the day, you are there to eat fast food not appreciate the architecture.
tldr: just run what you want.
>most players don't care about your setting
Chances are that they do care and they do have an opinion, but they're so fricking moronic, numb, and distracted from years of hyperstimulation that they can't articulate their thoughts clearly anymore.
god forbid people mull over what they want to be playing for the next year plus. My advice, cut back your adderall intake by half.
God forbid people from giving an answer too. It's a fricking game, anon, not a choice for your next job. Give an answer, express a preference, ask more questions to know about each campaign, talk with other players.
OP is complaining about silence, if his players would've actually attempted to talk out this thread wouldn't exist. We meme and complain about "the face of the party" precisely because it's so common for groups to have one person with balls to engage with the GM, while everyone else just goes with the flow.
It's a tucking game, with friends. Give an answer and change stuff later if it doesn't work out. You're suppossed to be doing this with people you trust and feel comfortable with.
I've seen dozens of threads like these and there's almost always morons who interpret
>players say fricking nothing when asked to do the hobby they said they wanted to engage with
As the GM fricking up somehow or being cruel and expecting way too much out of the players or just simply not doing enough for them, which is never what is said or implied. I can only reason that these sorts of belligerent morons are the exact sort of players who would do this shit to their GM and then go complain when the GM didn't just read their mind and flawlessly predict everything they actually wanted from the game they agreed to play anyways.
You are the DM, stop asking us to do your job for you.
The way you just phrased this, it sounds like "Congrats guys, you have slain the Dark Lichnomancer, the Kingdom is free to go back to doing frick all. What are we doing next week, here's 4 options?"
Take a week or two, do some regular board games or vidya, let them come down from that lichnomancer killing high, then gauge interest on the next thing. If you really want to start working, consider the logisitics of each of your 4 options. Like Pirates will need sea travel, boat rules, a collection of different powers in the area, probably a few npcs to help crew the ship/ships, as well as enemy/fenemy pirates to consider, as well as the factions navies as the PCs run afoul of them.
In that situation the answer is
>hey, those all sound good, but I want to cool down for a week or two if that's alright with the rest of the group
Don't pretend to be moronic and say you have no opinion or input when you've clearly got input. Players are expect to act like the self-aware, independent human beings they allegedly are. If they can't articulate their desires, that's not the GM's fault.
Update:They just couldn't be fricked to click the reaction button. I sent an invite to a new server for the campaign i want to run(idea 5) and everyone joined and is talking about what they want to play.
It sounds like your players are the type who don't want to upset anyone (basically, conflict-adverse). It makes sense that they wouldn't express their opinion in a vote (especially when they can be seen), but that they would all instantly hop to the new game and talk about what they want to play since the "burden" of choice has been lifted from them.
tl;dr players WANT to be railroaded to an extent. You did the right thing by choosing the idea you want to play and letting them adapt (I'm sure they'd want you to play what you most wanted to run anyway)
That's not conflict, though. It's still just laziness.