Campaign settings rejected by my players this year include

Campaign settings rejected by my players this year include

>Call of Cthulu game set in pre war Fascist Italy
>Low magic fantasy game playing norse type traders/warriors
>Industrial espionage game set in Late 19th Europe (players would have played Ottoman spies stealing technology to try and revive the fortunes of the Ottoman Empire)
>Counter espionage group of English nobles during the Stuart period
>Science fiction call of cthulu game where they play sheriffs on a newly colonised swamp world

Is there something wrong with me or with my players? I really want to try and do new interesting settings but they seem to hate all my ideas.

Did you try asking them what they actually wanted to play?

>be dm
>my players have prodigiously low standards and are fine with being completely railroaded
>I hate literally all of my ideas within 5 sessions of starting them
I have the opposite problem

I generally give them a list of 3, and if I don't get a majority for any one of them I generate another list.

>It takes him 5 whole sessions to hate his game
Get on my level user, I hate my games before the first session is finished.

said "within" 5 sessions, like that's the absolute max amount of sessions I can go before I hate it
I hated my most recent one 30 minutes into the first session

That's not asking them, that's conducting a fucking poll.
Here's some advice:
>they aren't your friends if you can't ask them an inoffensive direct question
Also
>I give them a list, if they don't pick something, they get another list
you're a faggot of the highest order

People like to play it safe with their limited time. Do you want to waste three sessions in Fascist Italy only to figure out you hate it when there is Golarion and you already know you can stand it?

>limited time
I will never understand people who value time who aren't about to die.

Find another group, a lot of those seem great.

So no then.

That's how we've always done it, and it's generally agreed that whoever GMs does it this way.

You're very confrontational you know that? You literally know nothing about how we organise ourselves, but somehow it's making you angry.

Mine this year:

>Escorting a lich phylactery to another dimension to cut a deal/coerce a demon to destroy it for good
>Jurassic Park- escaping the island edition
>Flee the Combine from HL2 across America and try to escape to a rumored paradise dimension
>In post-apocalypse america, be peasants who leave their village to find a way to stop the bandits from terrorizing them (yeah its Seven Samurai/Bugs Life, they were pretty into the idea)

Instead they wanted "slay a dragon"

>muh fee fees
nice

When you leave out information, but then ask questions, people are free to make their own conclusions.

>Golarion
>can stand it

Found the NEET

I'm not upset, I just think you're taking this weirdly personally.

Are you trying to troll?

Those all sound pretty good.

>they were pretty into the idea
>Instead they wanted "slay a dragon"
????

Scrub I hate my games before I've even thought them into existence to the point I just don't design anything as I know I'll hate it.

Put a twist on it and make them be a materialized dreams of a suicidal dragon.

Well in your list of 5 you have the redundancies of:
2x espionage focus
2x Cthulhu
2x slightly old timey (or 3x or 4x depending on player perception and presentation)
4x investigative
5x low/no magic in regards to the players
3x-4x our world/universe base

I can see easily how one might rect all of these with just a few preferences and dislikes.
Your selection isn't as broad as you think it is.

Actually kinda. They dont know it, but the dragon is insane and goes through utopic manic and apocalyptic aggressive phases. And now his evil half is running the show and is trying to control him for good

They wanted a mid level 5e campaign rather than a Savage Worlds or FATE thing. New systems r spoopy :(

With all due respect, a lot of those seem really... whats the word I'm looking for... realistic?

Call of Cthulhu is notoriously realistic with individual power (By my understanding, I've not actually played the game).

Two of your settings involved around trade and information

Two of your examples literally used the words "Espionage"

They all seem to be minimal magic as well.

OP, your settings and ideas aren't bad, but I think you need to read the room a bit. all 5 of those are about 'real people doing realistic shit' which is not bad... if you got the people who like that.

Your players may very well be the kind of players who like high magic settings and doing extravagant things. That doesn't mean that they all have to be gods who are unstoppable war machines, but, maybe they like the idea of high magic settings for one reason or another.

Another user mentioned asking what the group wanted to play, and I think that's kinda important. But, I think it's also important to ask them WHY they want to play that. It might help you understand why they're rejecting the other campaign settings.

This guy beat me ( ) to it.

I'm GMing, if they don't like my ideas, one of them can step up and do something else. I'm not going to run an ERP FATAL game just because they all want to play in one.