Is there a point in which one should stop attempting to become good at GMing?

I'm wondering, are you the only one in your group who DMs?

250+ one on ones and 90+ group sessions is a LOT, even for a few years.

Dude, u're trying to adapt the game to their preferences?
How???

I love you THF

never give up

My sessions are usually 5 to 7 hours long. Yes, I have indeed ran that much. It is what happens when one has plenty of free time.

One of my GMs outside of the group GMs group games even more often and for longer session times, so it is not something out of the ordinary.

This is not quite a regular, stable group in the traditional sense. It is simply a small circle of my online friends and small acquaintances. Based on scheduling, availability, and interest, I pull from this circle to assemble groups. I even call from this circle to help fill out player slots in games I am joining as a player myself.

I have played in games GMed by people from this circle previously. The one-on-one games have fared swimmingly. The group games, not so much; they are calamities. The group games under GMs outside of this circle... are hit-or-miss, but certainly with a better success rate.

This is what I try to do before a campaign.
This is what I try to do during the hours-long, heated arguments concerning my games and the problems they spawn.

It hardly works out all the same.

The single most successful game I have run is still ongoing. It was a deliberate attempt at a "bad, low-effort game." I used a system that the players and I all disliked (I am not saying which), the game is a complete railroad without freedom, and I go out of the way to utterly humiliate and embarrass the PCs and paint them as incompetent oafs... and yet that seems to be my most well-received game of all time.

Even *then*, the game still has its host of problems and heated arguments, even mid-session.

I'll be honest it actually sounds like you're listening to your players *too* much.

You're running the game you enjoy running it in the style you want that by the sounds of it you've practices and honed for a long time. You sound considerate of your players issues but you need to be able

There's really nothing wrong with saying 'this is how I'm running this game and that's that's. I think getting dragged into hour long arguments about it only makes things worse and you should refrain from such wastes of time and just continue playing.

I've found personally as a DM for over ten years that there's a lot of issues with player entitlement especially in recent years, I think this is a wider issue of instant gratification culture and video game mentality meaning people have knee jerk reactions when they don't like something entirely or don't do well at a game and blame the easiest target, in this case yourself, deposited all the love and effort and care you put into the game, for why they failed.

Honestly just ignore them and play your own way. Players are cheap you won't ever run out of them , and you can veto them as well if that helps in future.

This is a suggestion that I have received in the past, in fact. However, it has proven untenable due to the fact that my "default" GMing practices in group games inevitably run into heavy resistance from one player or another, to the point wherein it becomes a deal-breaker.

For instance, consider this thread, which lays out but one of the many problems that has arisen: One player was not fine with this, and the rest were *mostly* fine. When I discussed it with them, it resulted in two hours of heated arguments, which culminated in two people storming out. While one of them returned, the other announced that this would be the straw that broke the metaphorical camel's back, after one too many arguments and disconnects in GM-player preferences.

>Players are cheap you won't ever run out of them , and you can veto them as well if that helps in future.
Finding people who can tolerate my presence for protracted periods, on the other hand, *is* difficult.

The advice in is sound. The issue with trying to adjust based on player feedback is that players may not always be able to express their preferences properly.

Secondly, the difficulty you have with group vs. solo player sessions illustrates another facet of trying to modify based on everyone's feedback - every player is a little different. This isn't an issue in a solo player game, but in a group game some level of compromise is to be expected.

Still, your answers in suggest this is definitely more than "normal" .Any particular examples of misunderstandings or miscommunications? Why do you think misunderstandings happen more often in a group context rather than a solo game?

The issue is you're letting your games devolve into these two hour long arguments which won't be resolved because arguing with someone about something just strengthens their position.

You just say 'im sorry you feel that way however this is the way I run the game and that's that '.

They can always leave if they want to and you're actually ruining your own fun and the fun of the rest of your group for one player who has an issue with simply one aspect of the game you run that everyone else probably enjoys.

As I say you're focussing too much of your attention on the people complaining, just step back from it and run your game.

I agree with this guy, to an extent.

When you are a game master, and the player's object to something, you should listen to what they say, consider it, then make your decision.

A lot of times, even if it goes against the rules as written it could be fun to go with their ideas! However, I think you are someone that probably very highly values precedent, which is also important (Like if you let someone chuck two vials of acid early on in the campaign, they might end up throwing 50 at final bosses). Sometimes the solution here is to simply let it progress, and make it so whatever broken toy the PCs are utilizing bites them back (if you land an attack on the guy with 50 vials of acid, for example, you be pretty justified in saying that one ruptures and burns them).

The other side is saying no. Saying no to things is important! You run this game, and it ultimately us up to you what makes sense. The best way to do this, is to simply inform the players of how things actually work and what your decision is, and move on. At this stage, if it is mid game, you are free to accept no more challenge on that ruling, and continue to keep things flowing.

I'm not sure what you'd consider to be a big argument, but I think as GM you should expect players to question your rulings at least once a session, if no more. No rules system perfectly encapsulates every single possible scenario. As Game Master, you walk the thin line of enforcing your vision of your world, but also allowing the players to shape it to make something greater. It's a hard ask.

Being autistic definitely would complicate things, as when a player is arguing for a certain point of contention, it would be hard to judge if they are being cheeky, impassioned, agitated or philosophical.

I feel like in that position you should have just accepted that the player in question either just will not enjoy your DMing style or that particular campaign. If your other players were not having the same issue, then moving on seems to me like it would be the best course of action. Instead of trying to maintain that player (and causing an extra to leave as a result) simply accept that he doesn't like it and continue.

I read through that thread as well and the lengths which you are trying to go to placate this person seem ridiculous to me. I don't think it's worth derailing your campaign or burdening your other players with his character just to maintain that player.

>examples of misunderstandings or miscommunications
One of the recently-cited major misunderstandings had to do with pre-battle actions. One character had the ability to always act first in initiative. That character's player, during pre-battle banter, declared that they were using an ability to lay down a terrain effect, before continuing the conversation.

I warned that that would initiate combat, the player protested with their own argument, and eventually I vetoed the action outright, because it looked like the player was trying to eke out an extra action before combat started without consequences.

The player would then go on to cite this as an example of me completely divorcing noncombat and combat, and disconnecting the narrative and the combat.

Long after the incident, it turned out that all the player wanted to do was take their first turn (which was guaranteed to be first, remember) in advance as part of the fluff of the pre-battle banter scene. They were not, in fact, trying to eke out an extra action without consequence.

>They can always leave if they want to and you're actually ruining your own fun and the fun of the rest of your group for one player who has an issue with simply one aspect of the game you run that everyone else probably enjoys.

It seems to me that this would simply lead to everyone leaving the game.

What *already happens* is that I am bound to do something that is a deal-breaker for each player sooner or later, and that cannot be resolved through discussion. This results in players dropping out, and the game eventually imploding.

Would saying "I am not going to budge on this at all" from the beginning not simply accelerate that process?

>expect players to question your rulings
This questioning is what snowballs into great arguments that hold up a session for a protracted time, and continue on even after the session has concluded. Such arguments between sessions last anywhere from 2 to 16 hours.

>that I am bound to do something that is a deal-breaker for each player

You're not responsible for your players fun. Your role is to run the game how you want to run it to the best of your ability. That's all and it happens to already be the hardest role, it's nearly impossible if you decide you're also responsible for your players feelings.

You have no control over your players emotional states, if they are in a bad mood, upset over something in game or out of game, you have no control over that it's not your fault or responsibility to deal with.

If they can't play a fantasy dice rolling game that's ostensibly meant to be for fun without constant 'dealbreakers' that's on them. They can leave if they want to and sometimes you have to take that risk to have a better experience overall as a lot of times these things aren't 'dealbreakers' at all and the player is just in an emotional state where they think making threats will let them get what they want, which unfortunately sounds like the case if you give them hours of attention everytime they make a complaint.

Just acknowledge the complaint and move on.

The problem with coming up with all of these compromises is that they are negatively affecting the other players who do not have an issue. Instead of having one player who does not like thing, you now have multiple players who do not like either thing or how thing was handled. Furthermore, the arguing itself is probably a pretty big cause of player burnout or strife in general. It's always nice to discuss things but if you're inevitably getting stuck on something and arguing for 2 to 16 hours, I think there has to be a point where you've got to make that judgment call as the GM.

Alternatively, from what I've read in these 3 threads, it seems like you play with a relatively consistent circle of friends if not a consistent group. Maybe branch out and try finding some new players or running a different system?

Here is another example of a misunderstanding, one that tainted an entire campaign premise.

During the formation of the campaign's premise, one player strongly pushed for the party to have a planar air/spaceship, mostly as a cool means of transportation. I was running a setting wherein such a vessel is actually one of the more inefficient means of getting around (thank goodness for an abundance of intraplanar portals), limiting such ships to cargo transportation and warfare. Furthermore, I am just not that great a fan of such ships for anything but air/spaceship warfare, something I *do* like.

I capitulated to the player and let the party have such a ship and be its crew. As the campaign progressed, I found myself balking at the overall idea of the ship, and the vessel had proven unnecessary at many points (that is why they are used mostly for cargo transportation and warfare in my setting). I gradually came to totally hate the idea of the ship, and I regretted having capitulated to the player.

Long afterwards, it turned out that the player knew I was a great fan of air/spaceship warfare, but was ignorant of the fact that I disliked ships for anything else apart from that. The player simply assumed that I liked air/spaceships in general, and pushed for a ship to be integral to the campaign premise under the faulty assumption that I was a fan of such vessels. I had failed to pick up on the signs that the player was actually trying (and failing) to accommodate *me*.

Hello 2hu, good to see you're STILL not understanding the advice you've been given.

Sounds like you are dealing with a burnout.

Take a break, try to exclusively play instead of DM-ing for a while, Try to get into new groups maybe, meet new people, play some MMOs or something.

There's also the chance that you have to improve as a person before being able to improve as a DM. You may have hit a plateau in your skill that you can't break through without finding alternate paths to improve at.

Who's your favorite 2hu 2hufag?

I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome when I was ten and went through six years of social coaching along with four years of physical and occupational therapy. I'm now 27. When were you diagnosed, how old are you, and how much coaching have you received?

It kind of sounds like your friends are horribly suited to playing RPGs with you specifically, as opposed to it being another kind of problem, but I'm not sure. It's impossible to be certain when I haven't seen you GM.

That's stupid. You can't like the ships in combat but dislike them everywhere else, that just doesn't make any sense. You should like/dislike them as a package, not just one particular application of the concept.

>Demanding that someone adopt your criteria when appreciation of genre, aesthetics, and media has always been subjective

But he said he *doesn't* enjoy airships. He should not enjoy seeing in combat either, because he dislikes them in general, that's just how human beings work.

Work through the logic I've just presented to you. I know it's hard for your tiny, tiny brain, but try.

Nah, he likes grid based and position reliant tactical combat. Assuming that you insist airships stick to a 2d plane, that's what combat with them is.

Always fun to see you around THF, keep up the good effort
You don't know me, but for some time now I've had this bizarre desire to try and GM a game with you and a mutual online friend of ours. Too bad I'm way too timid to GM anything anytime soon.

It's kind of admirable that you at least keep trying.

What logic? You just said something that wasn't an argument.

>One of the recently-cited major misunderstandings had to do with pre-battle actions. One character had the ability to always act first in initiative. That character's player, during pre-battle banter, declared that they were using an ability to lay down a terrain effect, before continuing the conversation.
As a GM with 17 years of exp.

Just say "yes" ...

Your main objective as a GM is to give your players a good story. And not discussing rules with them. If they want to do something creative. Let them.

I know there are general differences between "american" and "european" sytle of playing and GMing games.

I for example don't even use a grid for pathfinder.

I personally haven't used a grid to measure in years. I mean, the thing I'm drawing the map on usually has a grid, but we don't use it except to draw the corners of rooms.

>toohoo image

Yeah you should never have tried to GM in the first place. You have absolutely no taste in fiction.

Both of these examples definitely represent communication breakdowns - in both cases you were not direct with your concerns. In the first case, you could have simply said that "If this occurs, you will be getting a free action and I as the GM don't think this is fair/proper in this context."

In the second case, this was simply a case of making a bad judgement call in one moment. As a GM you will make mistakes and bad calls.

In this case though, "airship ownership" seems like a trivial detail to get upset about in the larger context.

It sounds like you have a strong level of "possessiveness" over the fine points of your setting. A healthy campaign features collective buy-in and player preferences are meant to and should shape the campaign's direction. Part of RPGs is that the emergent processes of a group shape an emergent result; it's very opposite from a much stricter sort of experience like a novel or a video game.

Jesus Christ, retard. He likes airships in combat, that's his particular aesthetic craving. You're arguing that he shouldn't like them at all because he doesn't like them anywhere but in combat, which is stupid, because aesthetic appreciation doesn't have to be logical at all, which is due to the fact that aesthetics are entirely founded in the subjective. Subjective evaluations are fucking subjective and he likes what he likes, there's nothing more to it. I don't like death metal unless I'm pissed off. Please, tell me I shouldn't like it all so I can mock you further. Also, "that's just how human beings work"? Goddamn you're dumb. He's already demonstrated that this is not a universally applicable statement just by having the preference he has.

>One of the recently-cited major misunderstandings had to do with pre-battle actions. One character had the ability to always act first in initiative. That character's player, during pre-battle banter, declared that they were using an ability to lay down a terrain effect, before continuing the conversation.

>I warned that that would initiate combat, the player protested with their own argument, and eventually I vetoed the action outright, because it looked like the player was trying to eke out an extra action before combat started without consequences.

Ayyyy. Assuming your rules are remotely like Strike!'s core rules, you should have absolutely let him do a skill roll here (either to do the action, or to do the action "sneakily"), and then go with the results of that.

>The player would then go on to cite this as an example of me completely divorcing noncombat and combat, and disconnecting the narrative and the combat.

The player was right. No offense,

>Long after the incident, it turned out that all the player wanted to do was take their first turn (which was guaranteed to be first, remember) in advance as part of the fluff of the pre-battle banter scene. They were not, in fact, trying to eke out an extra action without consequence.

I think he was trying to make you feel better by retroactively changing his aim. His actions (and especially his complaint) make no sense unless you got what he attempted right the first time.

>Assuming your rules are remotely like Strike!'s core rules, you should have absolutely let him do a skill roll here (either to do the action, or to do the action "sneakily"), and then go with the results of that.

I considered that, but at the time, the player was quite clear that they wanted to use this specific action well before initiative.

What I should have done was clarify their intent further and ask for a skill roll, yes, but I had misinterpreted their intent from the beginning. That was my mistake.

Hey faggot, wanna answer my question? It's over there.

>I considered that, but at the time, the player was quite clear that they wanted to use this specific action well before initiative.

And why wouldn't he able to do what the ability was without combat (or before the initiative roll)?

Furthermore, in regards to the problem you outlined in :
RPGs fall into two major paradigms broadly:

1) solving imaginary problems mediated through some sort of ruleset that indicates the probability of certain actions.

2) the generation of a narrative through the emergent interplay of player actions

D&D and derivatives are very much a ruleset in the vein of #1. Challenges are presented, players tackle them within the bounds of the ruleset (or alternately beyond the bounds of the ruleset, which necessitates a referee to make a ruling). Very early on, people noticed that solving problems in this way would generate stories in the vein of #2 - and this represents another major objective that some RPG rulesets prioritize far more (ex. "narrative" games like FATE or PbTA).

When talking about "expectations" - this is the real thing to think about, not about whether you're running a Wild West game or a cyberpunk game or a fantasy game. Talking about genre and tone are fine, but it's also important to understand meta-game preferences - some players like the idea of solving challenges within the context of a rules regime, and some are more interested in emergent narratives (and some might be interested in both).

The second meta-game issue comes with the fact that you overwhelmingly seem to be a challenge-focused type of GM; the most imperative social resource at the table for a GM that wishes to run challenges is trust at the table. The players need to trust that the GM has planned a "fair" set of challenges, and the GM needs to trust that the players will abide by the scenario. Poor signaling and misunderstandings erode trust, to the point where a challenge-based campaign can break down entirely.

Using abilities like that outside of combat would be the purview of a Skill Roll, not the combat action itself.

I was absolutely certain that the player was trying to take the combat action itself, which is perhaps what led me to grossly misinterpret and misunderstand the situation.

I was diagnosed at age 14. I have had minimal coaching since then, probably because the Philippines is absolutely awful when it comes to such therapy.

It is only a year ago that I have begun dedicated, weekly social skills therapy. Again, I have been fortunate enough to receive a weekly therapist who specializes in autism, and is familiar with a wide range of RPGs, everything from Blades in the Dark to various PbtA hacks to D&D 4e and 5e. My therapist regularly discusses such RPGs during therapy and tries to use RPG group dynamics to help teach me social skills. Still, I am not making much progress.

>It kind of sounds like your friends are horribly suited to playing RPGs with you specifically
Yet they are the people who actually tolerate me from day to day, and so I play with them.

Maybe you should just let them DM for a while user.

>Using abilities like that outside of combat would be the purview of a Skill Roll, not the combat action itself.
>I was absolutely certain that the player was trying to take the combat action itself, which is perhaps what led me to grossly misinterpret and misunderstand the situation.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, the player probably should have been more clear about trying to use the skill to get the effect, instead of pointing at the power, but you also should have asked him if that1s what he wanted to do.

I guess that's one lesson to learn.

In general, just asking a player what they're hoping to accomplish whenever they take some strange or otherwise suspect action saves a ton of time. I'm not sure how private you are with your monster stats, but often times you can get away with giving your players an extra bit of fluff instead of giving them a mechanical benefit you feel is inappropriate. You can describe their attack as being particularly effective or catching the enemy off guard, but as long as they don't see its hp there's no need to let it deal any extra damage if you don't want it to.

>I was diagnosed at age 14. I have had minimal coaching since then
>It is only a year ago that I have begun dedicated, weekly social skills therapy.

I got to a point where I was just one step below most peoples' ability to empathize when I was about 20 and equaled my peers when I was 24, maybe 23. Apparently I had a four year head start on you, and my social education was some serious shit right from the start. Downright painful in its intensity. You still haven't told me how old you are, however, so I'm left guessing about the impact. Sounds like you just aren't going to be able to fix this problem until you've experience more of life in general. Traveling, meeting new people, and getting involved in shit that makes you horribly uncomfortable can accelerate the process, but you basically just have to get older if this is the problem you're facing.

>Yet they are the people who actually tolerate me from day to day, and so I play with them.
Oh I know, and that doesn't contradict what I'm saying because they may get along with you because they too have some degree of difficulty with communication and socializing in general. Arguments amongst poor communicators can be all the more explosive because everyone is failing to understand everyone.

Sometimes it's just not meant to be. We have a guy in our group, absolutley shit at GMing. I have sat down with him and tried to explain basic problems, like his constant railroading, the fact that he doesen't take any prep-time for his "campaings"(literally every camapaing was thought out 30-60 minutes before we started playing), his extreme player vs GM attitude, his complete inability to balance encounters. He took some of those to heart but ignored the most. Then, as his games went along, he started fucking up on subtle stuff, marry sue DMPCs, etc.
At this point there's a lot of bad blood betwen us and him, and people are starting to get pissed at him. We even started to openly mock and shit on his campaing in front of him but he doesen't take a hint. It will either end in group colectivley baning him from GMing or falling apart.

Perhaps you are correct. I should learn to simply say, "I am sorry, but this is the way I prefer to run this facet of my games. It is part of my GMing style. If that disappoints you, I apologize, but I will be sticking to it."

>Alternatively, from what I've read in these 3 threads, it seems like you play with a relatively consistent circle of friends if not a consistent group. Maybe branch out and try finding some new players or running a different system?
These are the handful of people who have tolerated me throughout the years. It is very difficult to find people who can put up with me; how would I go about doing that without going into the wild and infuriating many?

This is perhaps accurate. I am an extremely challenge-focused GM. I am very goal/results-oriented. I enjoy RPGs as problem-solving exercises, and I relish in laying out problems for the PCs to solve. I enjoy having the PCs make an impact on the setting by way of solving the game world's problems.

Double-checking someone's precise intent and goal seems like good advice in general.

OP, after reading both threads, i want to say a few things.
1) Is English your first language / Are you running your games in English?
I am asking because you are writing in a very correct and proper way that seems a bit out of place here and would be on the gaming table, too.
But even if you aren't, you should be mindful to talk to them more informally, you're their schoolmate, not schoolmaster. (Of course metaphorically)
You might think that it's irrelevant and good manners to talk as proper as possible, but it can come of as standoffish.
Theres a world of difference between 'Ya see, Bobby, ...' and 'Robert, in fact ...'

2) Good friends don't necessarily make a good group
It's as simple as that. You said you play with them because they can tolerate you, but one of the upsides of TT is that it's a structured and contained social meeting. You don't need to be friends with all the other players, you can just be RPG-buddies.
While i wouldn't say you should GM a game for randos right of the bat, you think about playing in one.

The next thing is maybe a bit of a shot in the dark, but based on things i noticed with my slightly autistic friend:
3) Try to be actively emphatic
When there is a disagreement try to see how the other person arrived on their point of view. Try to be intellectually honest here and don't just write it off as them being stupid.
Think through how they might be right and you might be wrong. If you see a flaw in their logic, ask first before it devolves into an actual fight.
And if there is a communication breakdown just disengage gracefully instead of dragging it on. Say something non-offensive like 'Lets a gree to disagree' and move on.
(This is actually one of my friends problem, he either ends it with something inflammatory or drags on the discussion for ages. The former mostly when he's actually right and the other person just doesn't get around to his POV, the later when he is wrong for the most part but has a single aspect where he isn't)

The problem is that the puzzles you lay out should allow for and have complicated or nuanced answers but instead they have very one-dimensional solutions.

Also, who cares if you infuriate many? Eventually you'd find others.

That said, aside from learning to simply say "I am sorry, but this is the way I prefer to run this facet of my games. It is part of my GMing style. If that disappoints you, I apologize, but I will be sticking to it," someone else had suggested the following:

>I think you should have your players talk amongst themselves about what kind of game they want to play. They should reach some kind of compromise that all of them can be happy with. Once they have agreed on what kind of game they want to play, THEN they should explain to you.

>Trying to listen to all three of them voicing different opinions is just confusing you and making things harder.

>And it's impossible to satisfy them all of they don't agree on anything

>Once they have told you what kind of game that they collectively want to play, you can work with them and decide what you need to do from there.

>You may need to compromise on some points that take you out of your comfort zone, but it's also important that you are having fun too.

>Wouldn't it make it easier to understand their expectations if they all settled down and discussed it amongst themselves before presenting their wishes to you?

This seems like a good idea, because I get *very* easily confused when dealing with multiple people simultaneously and attempting to address each of their concerns and protests. I often wind up mixing up who said what and misattributing complaints, which tends to raise tensions and foment discord.

It should surely be more effective to have the group come to a compromise first, then have a spokesperson present the idea to me for further compromise, no?

The question is: when should I resort to the "group compromises between itself, then presents the idea to the GM for further compromise" method, and when should I simply say, "I am sorry, but this is the way I prefer to run this facet of my games. It is part of my GMing style. If that disappoints you, I apologize, but I will be sticking to it"?

I run my games in English. I have been informed that I speak in a rather formal manner, although I personally consider such rather casual by my own standards. Nevertheless, it is a point I have been working with under my social skills therapist, although I make little progress.

Good friends do not necessarily make a good group, but there are shockingly few people I can actually get along with (and vice versa) outside of this circle. How am I to play with other persons if they cannot tolerate me to start with?

>When there is a disagreement try to see how the other person arrived on their point of view. Try to be intellectually honest here and don't just write it off as them being stupid.
This is something my weekly social skills therapist tries to teach me, because it is part and parcel of coaching for autists. It is much easier said than done, and I make minimal process.

One recent compromise I have made with the group is to always include *ternary* choices and solutions plus a "fill in your own unique solution" for just about everything, rather than only one or two choices plus a "fill in your own unique solution."

Christ this thread is deppressing.

>That said, aside from learning to simply say "I am sorry, but this is the way I prefer to run this facet of my games. It is part of my GMing style. If that disappoints you, I apologize, but I will be sticking to it," someone else had suggested the following:

An idea: Perhaps I should ask the group to compromise with themselves, and then make a decision on whether or not to compromise from there?

>OP has counted the number of times he's GMed over the past year
Did you come here just to humble-brag about how meticulous of a GM you are?

He's literally autistic.

Touhoufag your persistence has inspired other people. Don't give up.

>mild form of autism
>posts on Veeky Forums
I don't think it's mild, user.

>"You not-unsubtly hinted that you have a mild form of autism"
>he literally said there are autism-borne misunderstandings and he attends weekly autism social skill therapy

OP may be autistic but I feel like you may possibly be retarded

That fact that you say you've run approximately a range of sessions, and that you're even trying to fucking count how many you've run, means you're beyond hope.

The moment you stop giving a shit like an autist is when you'll move from being a retard with a rule book to a mediocre GM.

But he IS an autist, user.

Dammit, touhoufag, let this go.
We can't give you more advice than we already have.
Part ways with the problem player, take the words of your group to heart, and make sure the game is fun for everyone.

>The issue with trying to adjust based on player feedback is that players may not always be able to express their preferences properly.
To expand on this a little: if you wanted to learn how to cook, would you ask a restaurant critic or a chef?

Getting GM advice from your players is like getting cooking lessons from a restaurant critic. They can tell you what they like and dislike, and they can describe to you what the end result should look like, but they can't tell you anything about what to do in the kitchen to get that result. "Don't make the crust too thick, and don't put any olives on" doesn't tell you how to make a pizza.

Have you considered learning improve? You pick up a lot of useful talents. Reading the room, overcoming objection, ignoring failure, changing shit on the fly at a moments notice... plus its fun and easy way to socialize.
And if thats too hard for you, youtube improve skills.

Tewi

>How am I to play with other persons if they cannot tolerate me to start with?
Honest question, do you have any 'ticks' (for lack of a better word) that would make you particularly difficult to be around?

Because my point was this: Usually the out of game social aspect of TTRPGs is pretty ordered.
You know where and when to meet, know what to do, etc. After a few weeks a routine developes about it.

I don't know about RPG culture in the Philippines, but you should try your FLG, Facebook, or anything similar to look for a game. A change in perspective both GM->Player as well as new people might help.

I know, it's 2hu the earth syrup. But fucking still.

The moment he just lets go and stops caring about trivial things, things will improve.

Do you talk with your shrink about your attraction to children and renderings of children too?

Might be a good idea to, before you hurt someone.

Why?

Because she's cute? Nice design, really strong, fun and mischievous.

Most autistic thing in this thread so far.

Ignore this user

also Orin is best cat

Tewi is a cunt.

watching you post all of these crying 2hus hurts my soul

Your a cunt

Kill yourself Colette.

*you're

C'mon Earth Synapse 2hu, you're more autistic than that.