GM-Player interaction (or lack of it)

>Read the setting more than the GM
>Weigh the different character options
>Talk about the cool things in the setting
>Talk about the dumb things in the setting
>Make a thread on Veeky Forums asking about the game
>Mention how something doesn't seem fitting
>Not that it's bad, just that it doesn't seem fitting
>Other players tell me to stop arguing
>Don't want to play with me
>Kicked from the game for clearly not actually wanting to play
>mfw

>Different game
>GM bans a character type
>Most interesting one
>Ask about it
>"I've had experience with it and it changes the type of game"
>Curious, ask what experience
>"It makes the game different, just trust me"
>Okay, I trust you, but what happened?
>"I already told you"
>What were the actual events of the games that you have played
>"You make me want to kick you"
>mfw

>Run a game
>People say they're interested
>Don't read the book
>Don't talk to each other about characters
>Only questions are about powers
>Players don't care about their character's place in society or how much in setting knowledge they'll have
>"Anyone want to talk about the game?"
>[vague mumbling, lack of motivation]
>"Are you even interested?"
>No, no, of course
>mfw

Am I just going about this wrong? Should I just stop caring what other people are doing and make a random character without reading the setting and show up in the first session just like that? Should I stop trying to have my players know each other or the world, and set a deadline and whoever shows up gets to play? It feels like that's what everyone else wants to happen.
It feels like getting interested and engaged is somehow wrong. Meanwhile I'd love for a player to ask me questions that aren't "which power lets me socially manipulate the most people?"

Play with people who aren't assholes.

>Read the campaign setting more than the DM

*shudders* This is why I never want to run a campaign in a land the players know period. You miss one small detail of the fucking thing and they'll point out a small inconsistency OUTSIDE the game, fucking up your story.

To your overall question, you seem much more serious than anyone else that wants to play. The Pathfinder GM guide would explain you as a rules lawyer and continuity expert.

Now this isn't your fault, but you'd be better off finding a more serious group.

Not OP but is it that uncommon? The last group I was in the other players were doing stupid shit like skull fucking statues or spending the time they werent actually doing something texting on their phones and posting on facebook. Is it really too much to ask to have other players be invested in what's going on?

Apparently I just failed my reading comprehension, what's being described in the first greentext chunk? Did you complain about some single thing he didn't like in a setting and get booted from the game for it?

If I read that right, that and the second one together imply you're probably just bad at social stuff and get on peoples' nerves without realizing it.

The third one is fairly common, and I think it's more the players than anything else.

>You miss one small detail of the fucking thing and they'll point out a small inconsistency OUTSIDE the game, fucking up your story.
Honestly I haven't had any really bad experiences with that, but I'm paranoid that some detail I miss will change the implications of something and me telling them "no, wait, actually treat it like it's this other way for this session" will make something too obvious and they'll figure out the secret too soon or some shit.

I tend to solve that by either lifting chunks of settings at a time and homebrewing around them or just saying "the setting for this game is strongly based around the one from [popular media franchise], bust just keep to the basics that your average joe will know." Then I can pick individual details from canon, or make up my own if that's what I want.

So something like "this game is basically Star Trek, but ignore anything other than the super obvious races and technologies like Klingons and Warp Drives."

Some people just want to do stupid shit they wouldn't be able to get away with in real life, or they just want to win constantly. You'd do well to try to find a group that wants approximately the same stuff out of the game as you do, and then play with them instead.

Sadly for OP, I side with this guy: Being a GM sucks nowadays, you break your back to give ungrateful fuckers a world to play in and the only thing you get is trolls, abusers (powergamers and such or "optimizers") and overall people who suck.

You sound like a sperglord who pushes too
much and fails to take basic social queues.

>Ask about it
>"I've had experience with it and it changes the type of game"
>Curious, ask what experience
>"It makes the game different, just trust me"
>Okay, I trust you, but what happened?

Jesus cucking Christ.

If players aren't already familiar with\experienced with a setting or/And system DO NOT expect them to do homework for your game unless you know them and they're that kind of player.

What did he ban though?

Would telling the OP been that difficult though?

"Just tell me so I can argue about it."

OP is probably nosey cancer who doesn't respect boundaries, so it would have invariably lead to more arguing with someone on the spectrum about bullshit when the GM has a lot more to worry about.

Nobody is entitled to explanations of these things, if you demand them you need to be ready for disappointment.

>Read the setting more than the GM
If some dumb shit tries to lecture me about setting garbage I'll blow up some city east of baldurs gate with an airship invasion from vikings off the west of the map. I keep it internally consistant with MY campaign

"Just tell me so I can know"
FTFY

>Being a GM sucks nowadays, you break your back to give ungrateful fuckers a world to play in and the only thing you get is trolls, abusers (powergamers and such or "optimizers") and overall people who suck.
This is too true sadly
I love the idea of GMing and tabletop games but players rarely think for themselves or even remember what was going on between sessions unless they're cooking up a "gotcha!" moment against the GM
So instead of going "we were doing this thing and know that unless we do something, bad things will happen so let's continue and prevent bad things", they go "we were doing this thing and know that unless we do something, bad things will happen so let's stand around until the GM pulls an offhand comment about some rumour heard on a street corner out of his imagination hat and go do that all session instead of following the thread we were already on" and finish off with being upset over the bad thing happening even though it was their fault for not doing anything
I get that players just want to sit down and have fun but surely fun can be gotten while also using the grey matter in-between the ears

This deep drive to know things other people clearly do not want you to know, how has it served you in social interactions? Getting laid?

People tell me everything, generally because I never demand it of them.

Actually i would call you the sperglord rather than the OP, holy fucking shit man.

Also you set up a strawman so you could paint it like it was a bad thing to know something about a setting....

It's called being curious?
How is it 'demanding' to ask why a character was banned?

What do you think caused the decline in player quality? Im assuming it didnt used to be this way?

what character did he ban

I love being a GM, I get to tell the stories I want to in an interactive environment. They wont be adapted into a movie or a AAA game but they're fun enough. Players like you make me hate being a GM

It's demanding because the GM didn't want to tell you and you couldn't handle no for an answer. He had no obligation to tell you in and obviously you were sending him signals that you were going to end up like the people he was trying to avoid.

Fair enough, but I just think that in OP's case, knowing why it was banned would be helpful to avoid that problem in the future.
I also think that when players read into the lore a bunch, it's semi-cheating, since some of that knowledge is information the character shouldn't have, and even if you try hard, sometimes you'll mix the ooc and ic

To be absolutely honest, my guess is video games and social media along with other things that kill attention spans and make people never go deeper than surface level.

>helping to run a 72hour marathon pathfinder game at university gaming club
>it is maybe hour 60
>people are getting punchy
>I am backup GM and rules help
>current GM is running a trap room where the PCs are chess pieces in a giant game of chess
>the wargame minded people are way into it, the roleplaying minded people not so much
>They fail the room twice, usually means death but the current GM is being nice and giving them three tries to beat her at chess
>wargame people start moving the RP people characters around without permisssion
>"Please don't move my character without asking first"
>One wargame person exasperated yells
>"Do you want to roleplay or do you want to win!?"
>Roleplay people and me end up playing a quick beer and pretzels game while the chess game is being finished

Have you found a good group that is genuinely interested? I've been trying to run games for years in person and occasionally on/tg/ and /qst/ and people just seem really uninvested, leaving threads, texting, and flaking. I just assumed that's how everyone is, but some of the other parts hint that it's not.

Tl;dr how do I find players or GM's that aren't going to ruin everything I like about tg's?

Nothing like that in my area. I wish there were but quite frankly there just arent really any Veeky Forumsrelated hobbyists in my area that do anything besides M:TG.

Isnt preknowledge of the setting just ruining the game for yourself, at least past the stuff your guy should know? Instead of "holy shit look at this amazing new place I want to explore it!" it's "lets blow this dump the capital is way more important and also I know the hundred thousand years of secret history of the entire world".

Because "I'm just curious" is potentially a prelude to an argument. If he doesn't explain it then you can only argue about the fact that he won't tell you.

That's exactly what it is. Everyone from this piece of shit generation (unfortunately my generation) can't sit down for more than 5 seconds without doing something on their phones. It's that instant gratification people want. It's fucking terrible.

I think it all depends on the tone. I can see how a sperg could make things into an argument with their monotone way of speaking.

My current player that has positively surprised me the most is a guy with no previous interaction with tabletop games
He's eager to play, wants to roll dice and actually roleplays even if it is just talking a bit differently without overdoing it and acting like someone from the world would do
The player that I have gotten the most negative surprises from currently on the other hand, is the guy with the most experience since he tries to one-up the system in-character and will start a 30+ minute long OOC argument, and continue being passive-aggressive over it half a week later, over how a character is dumb for having an opinion and not bending over backwards for his character's opinion just because he gave his character some character
So my best advice about forming a good group is really to get people with little experience since they'll still have a sense of wonder about the entire thing and actually want to play and then you just have to keep them in that state so that they don't develop the awful traits that ruin games
This advice is based on several campaigns I've run where the guy with the least experience always was the most pleasant of the bunch

>It's not me, it's all the other players and GMs out there!
That Guy, the post.

I agree with this anons first point. By knowing what was banned you can gauge how the GM will likely react to similar situations. Or whether or not it was even justifiable. Plenty of us have heard the "GM things martials are OP so banned these things" when any one with a brain back tell that that is an unreasonable ban. If it falls along the same lines you can at least be aware that it might become a bumpy ride down the line, or on the other hand it could be a fair and reasonable decision for the ban and you are now aware that the GM doesn't play things fast and loose when it comes to restrictions and bans. In general asking questions shouldn't be quelled.

Thanks man, I guess I need to get out there and find more people like that

>Plays a game, quibbles about small aspects of the setting

>Plays another game, bickers because he can't play a certain race/class he's enamored with because of the mechanics

>Finally runs a game, is frustrated because the players only care about character mechanics.

It's like he's a terrible role-playing gamer, and completely obvious to it. Too Funny.

Wecome to Tha/tg/uy.

It depends really. If the players are outsides coming into a location, then having only rumors or misinformation makes sense, or even none at all. However if they are natives to an area there are certain things the PCs should be aware of. Degrees of tech level, social norms or customs, general attitudes towards this and that. By not giving them this kind of information if they are the latter, the PCs will react far differently or even badly in some cases to things the GM puts in front of them, then if they were just told before starting, so they had some context to base a mindset off of.

This.
If the lore is really interesting and engaging, the GM can incorporate it into the setting and use that to breathe life into the campaign world.

If it's a shitload of uninteresting garbage revolvinig around the PC's of the developers (looking at you Forgotten Realms) you can't expect anyone to read all that shit and care.

>The Pathfinder GM guide would explain you as a rules lawyer and continuity expert.
But I'm neither. I just wanted to know about the setting and characters before deciding which one was most interesting. In the first example I was literally just trying to decide what country in 7th Sea was most interesting. I pointed out that a) the titular 7th Sea and the ocean aren't really a big part of the game, and b) the game's adventurer descriptions are all about why they'd defend their country, not why they'd go exploring.
But apparently saying "this pirate game isn't very piratey" is trolling, even though I liked that. I actually thought the different cultures were interesting and that the seas part was boring. It wasn't even going to be a pirate campaign!

I'm not looking to minmax, I just want to know what my options are before making a character without reading the setting they're from.

I feel like some of the complaints in this thread are directed at me.

I'm sorry ok?! It's hard to stay interested in an online game like in a real life game.

Also to the GMs in the thread- sometimes the reasons why players need 'you to spoon feed' them where to go is because they can't magically read your mind and know where the next plot point or villian is.

>I was literally just trying to decide what country in 7th Sea was most interesting.
That would be the one that the DM puts the most thought into and runs in the most interesting manner, not the one with the best flavor text.

Honestly, you sound like a min-maxer trying to be coy about it.

I mentioned stuff about 7th Sea that apparently came off as complaining, and I kept being unable to decide which concept I wanted to play.
>If I read that right, that and the second one together imply you're probably just bad at social stuff and get on peoples' nerves without realizing it.
Won't deny it!

>What did he ban though?
The Chosen in Monsterhearts makes the game externally focused. I wasn't even asking why it was banned, it says that right on the character sheet. I wanted to know what happened in his game.

I was reading the setting so I'd know what my options for a character were, not to rules lawyer.
I'm also just the type of person who likes to know the basic customs and attitudes of the country that my character is from. Strange, I know.

>GM won't let me play this "interesting Race
>GM won't let me play this "interesting" Class

Every Munchkin on Veeky Forums ever.

Not OP but you sound like the guy who shows up to the session and sits on his computer and asks a billion questions about the setting and the system while you browse Facebook because you couldn't be bothered to read a little.

I wasn't aware that "actually knowing the place of your character's birth well enough to roleplay that" was minmaxing. Forgive me.

What were the actual events of the games that you have played?

Call me crazy but I'm not sure we're getting the complete story in any of these.

Call me a cynic, but I have a hard time accepting that you are thoroughly studying the campaign setting for "roleplaying" purposes.
Actually I'm the Forever GM that has to occasionally tolerate super-needy players like the OP who find more "enjoyment" from their stats and errata than from engaging in the game in a social and easy-going manner.

Forever GM is a rough fate to handle.

He's omitted his staggering lack of interpersonal skills for narrative purposes, but they are becoming apparent each time he posts.

Seconding this. Newbies are great fun (assuming they're actually there to game and not because their friend/gf/older brother dragged them along) because of that sense of wonder.

That's why I've started leaning towards fluffier systems like fate over the years- the guy wanting to cut a troll's hamstring doesn't want to hear 'ACKSHUALLY you need xyz feats and this character build to do anything that isn't just rolling to hit" because that turns something cool into an autistic puzzlebox they don't understand.

Honestly, I too easily become "that guy" as a player, and I get a lot of enjoyment out of GMing.
I've also always been very popular as a GM, and usually only have to deal with picking and choosing from a larger group of willing players than I could even hope to accommodate.

I am lucky at this point that I have a stable group of good players in a 5e game everyone is enjoying. And I say "good" in the sense that they get along really well, have plenty of enthusiasm for showing up every session, and seem really focused on the game. Their mechanical skills with 5e ranged from "not very familiar" to "my math is bad" when we started.

If you want to know your character in a more in depth manner because that will help you play that character in a way that'll either enrich the story or encourage others to get more invested then that's all well and good.

But you strike me as the kind of guy who does it simply to wank off about how much "depth" oozes off your masterful and well thought out character designs.

This, at best.

See and I'm sorry that you've been so hurt that you can't at all comprehend someone wanting to know about the game that they're playing before they make their character, but I was reading the setting part, not the mechanics part. I actually still don't know how the game works.

I just wanted to know whether Not!Germany or Not!Russia would be more interesting. I mean, I went with the most useless seeming magic type just because they eat brains.

gosh asking the gm to elaborate on why some game component changes the game that it is part of seems like a good idea. the implication of the gm is that he is playing the game differently from the book presentation. also if the gm needs to be vague to that degree, i conclude he is too stupid to know what he is actually doing.

>the implication of the gm is that he is playing the game differently from the book presentation.
To be fair, the Chosen skin explicitly says that it can change the game. I was never upset that he told me it wasn't allowed. I just wanted to know specifically what his experience with it had been, in case I could suggest a solution.
Plus, I know they'll never go for it, but I want to run this for my real life friends. So knowing that stuff would be useful.

I have had to many bad experiences with inconsistent homebrew settings to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Bump

Did you help your GM make the setting ? I've made quite a few settings for my players, and as much as I love worldbuilding it gets overwhelming at times ; too many aspects to deal with at the same time, too many details you can't think of but that your players will ask about.
The best homebrew settings are those that the entire group is involved in to some degree. I'm not saying players should get as autistic about it as I do, but a few ideas they might throw my way are what make the settings deep and rich, and get all of us invested in them.

People need to realise GMs aren't perfect and the players need to work WITH them if they want the game to be enjoyable. Not targeting you specifically user, this is just something OP and other people seem to have a problem with

>People need to realise GMs aren't perfect and the players need to work WITH them if they want the game to be enjoyable. Not targeting you specifically user, this is just something OP and other people seem to have a problem with
As OP, that is exactly what I was trying to do in all cases.