I've noticed a weird dichotomy on Veeky Forums

Nobody is willing to make sure their gm is having fun too. Players are always trying to deliberately jump the rails because 'fuck that guy for trying to take away muh freedom!' They don't pay attention until it's their turn in combat, wreck the story for lulz, etc.

Players need to try to have the gm's back more often. I'm not saying all gms are saints but players are really shitty a lot of the time. Games go much smoother if you take the time to be the player you want to see.

This. Players' seeming disregard for rules/lore/common decency is an outgrowth of players who don't have any stake in the setting whatsoever. You need to get players in the game for real, which takes some effort. Proper, in character roleplay. Strict stance against metagaming. And not being afraid to weed out the dude who's been playing Hearthstone on his tablet all session until it's his turn to make a melee basic attack again.

Not that guy, but I’d argue the idea is actual production of some media beyond just GMing. World building should be more of an internal process than external one, which is to say getting handed a dossier of facts about a world that you are expected to read feels hokey, and that you’re having to put in more work than what you were planning, which was to go kill some Orcs or whatever. World building should be something where you invite people to look in, not something you broadcast and expect to be heard.

The problem with that approach is that rpgs are inherently cooperative but require everyone to be on the same page. You need to know at least some things about the world you're in to meaningfully interact with it. That applies even to premade 3rd party settings, if you like thjngs more "official". You kind of have to give the players a packet of info and say "this is what you should know" , elsewise you're just questing in a formless void

I think that's an unfair assessment. Playing rpgs is an equal responsibility task. You can't simply place all the blame at the foot of the GM, just like you can't solely blame the players. Everyone needs to work to make the game the best it can be

The GM needs to work harder.

I'd say he just needs to work in different ways. Maybe a little bit more, but just so. Players are the main characters, the spoke around which the game turns. They have to be proactive and they have to be involved. They can't just sit around with their thumbs up their asses and wait for the GM to plop the points of interest in front of them. That's lazy and its unfair to the GM. The game is everyone's responsibility and if the main characters don't care about their own lives and world then that's going to make for a shit game

Good gms enjoy watching their world and story get taken on and spun around by the players

Good players enjoy following and taking on and adding their own spin on the gm’s story

>everything is the gms fault bad players don't exist
No you are retarded

GMs tend to take their stories too seriously and have too many goddamn info dumps, I had one who keeps talking nonstop I swear, every single NPC talks too much we need to interrupted him to move shit and it's still slow as fuck.

As a player I prefer more interactivity, if the players don't ask about it, no need to go super detailed about every single boring shit that may or may not affect the world.

When you have 4 hours session which only 30 minutes of it is player talking then something isn't going well.

this is not only on Veeky Forums, it's rpgs everywhere.

>Don't like attempts at "lore" and being subjected to the GMs writing, don't want to constantly ask what shit is or what they know. Likes combat and doing their own thing. Likes running around and doing stuff without necessarily having a reason. Treats the game more as a fun time to hang out and do some light roleplaying rather than trying to further some "story" the GM wants to tell
Wow, my players are the complete opposite of this.

You should find better players.

This is an excellent post. Have a (you).

>players can do no wrong
Found the forever-player.

From the viewpoint of a player, I'd like to elaborate on this by telling a story of a wonderful GM I had once and some shitty behavior on my group's end. And I'm gonna do it in greentext, to be a twat.

>Be me
>Watch Archer
>Love it
>Keep dropping Archer references in my Shadowrun game
>The rest of the group starts, because they also like Archer
>The GM hates this at first
>Then the GM introduces a street doc
>We call him Kreiger out of game repeatedly
>After a while, it turns out Kreiger is both the dude's name, and the dude is far scarier than Kreiger.
>Yeah, he's somehow a slightly less moral Kreiger in a setting that takes itself somewhat seriously at times

...Turns out that playing what we were joking about *completely* straight, except locked to the themes and aesthetics of the setting, was immersive as hell. We got really into that horrible wretched crazy bastard's plots, because we were a pretty black hat party, but by god, it was fucking great. By the end of the campaign, our characters were Johnsons setting up low-end runs to bolster our big plots, mostly because of the path he set us on.

Now, look-- In retrospect, I don't do that shit anymore. I realize how much memeing can disrupt a game from other experiences. But I gotta thank the Aussie twat who ran that campaign for using the tools available to him to show me a better way.

And if you're curious-- As our own involvement with Kreiger grew, the jokes about Archer diminished. They never quite ended-- My character climbed up on top of an 18-wheeler to fight gangers at one point and spent most of the session bitching about the wind in his eyes-- But they certainly got a lot less frequent and more thematically appropriate.

>Including players in the worldbuilding stage of the game can work the miracle.
What if the players don't want to be included? In session zero of the last campaign I tried to run, I tried to get the players to create locations using the rules from Beyond the Wall. One of them, the one who was also a GM, created a pretty cool place with its own lore and everything, the others just weren't interested at all.

>What if the players don't want to be included?

The same as when that happens in any other hobby:

Either you find a new group to do what you want to do, negotiate with your current group to find a middle ground that's interesting to all parties, go along with their plans, or try and convince them that their tastes are wrong. The last one almost never works, mind, but I have seen it work once, and I'm including it for the sake of completion.

Look, the duder didn't give you a silver bullet. He just gave you a pack of ammo and said, "this might work."

If the GM doesn't think that the story should be what the players decide to do, they're a shit GM.

Happened to me. No players wanted to DM, but they got bored with my ideas and wanted me to stop being so "samey." Asked them to help worldbuild for a better setting, instead they just handed me a list of things they didn't want and told me they "didn't want to ruin the excitement by spoiling it for themselves" by helping. That was the last time I played with them.

I mean, your fun is just as valid as theirs, but in your specific case I actually don't get this as a complaint of "don't want to be included." Like, they have some hard "No's" and are claiming they're willing to indulge the other shit you're willing to do-- How is this a bad thing?

Like, removing shit from the aether is just as valid as adding shit to the aether when it comes to building a damn world as far as I'm concerned, Christ. Am I missing a detail here?

i tend to go middle-ground in the dichotomy. as a player, i tend to run skill-monkeys who try to act as both the voice of reason and the conscience for the party.

i probably wouldn't be too terribly interested in worldbuilding with the DM, but that's because 1. i'm kinda lazy, 2. i figure i'll probably create a glaring plot hole with anything i come up with, in some cases because our DM forgets what critical information he's told us and what he hasn't, 3. anything i come up with will be objectively worse than whatever the DM could cook up, and probably ridden with dumb cliches, 4. if i give my characters connections elsewhere in the world it makes them (and me) vulnerable to having those connections attacked by whatever villains we're up against this time and probably killed off, 5. i have a hard time separating myself from my character and i get genuinely upset when my character's world is crapsack, which many areas are, so any worldbuilding i try to do will probably frustrate everyone whenever i get worked up about how awful the setting is to live in if it's theoretically wihtin my power as a worldbuilder to change it

It's just kind of shitty that he asked the players to work with him to help build a world Everyone has some degree of investment in and they responded with a "Nah, you do it. Won't tell You what we like, but here's some shit we don't want". Not wanting to spoil the surprise just sounds like an excuse to get out of doing anything

What's all this lore bullshit. I just want to hit the monster REAL GOOD.

I agree with the idea but not your suggestions. In my experience the easiest way to get players invested is to use teacher tricks that sadly make you look retarded to outside observers and to make them personally contribute to the setting. Drawing up a map of the setting with the players is easily the fastest way to get them to stop murderhoboing.

If you're too much of a turboautist to go through with it or your players are too "hardcore" to play along you're fucked.

Fuck off Kyle

It takes 20 seconds to make a list of things you don't like, it takes weeks to make a setting (minimum). The request was in response to them complaining about my previous settings, so I asked them to help me make one they would enjoy.

Basically they told me they don't want to do what I want to do, but are too lazy to tell me what they do want to do.

Well you don't need a group to hit a monster real good. You can make your own dungeon to run or play a video game.

GMs and players on Veeky Forums who violently disagree on that sort of stuff don't actually play roleplaying games.

>It takes 20 seconds to make a list of things you don't like, it takes weeks to make a setting (minimum)

Oh, so you have two wrong things in your fundamentals. Gotcha. Further discussion about worldbuilding itself actually is pointless.

That said...

>The request was in response to them complaining about my previous settings

And you think this didn't tint the whole social interaction really goddamn heavily?

>so I asked them to help me make one they would enjoy.

And they did. Not to your standards and specifications, but really, did you actually point this out and ask for further investment to work from? Because you sound autistic as fuck.

>Basically they told me they don't want to do what I want to do, but are too lazy to tell me what they do want to do.

Could be their idea of "what you do" is heavily tinted by who you are, mate. And don't even pretend you're above that crap.

>Hurr Durr your fault shit DM LMAO xD
Even if you were somehow correct, it's still pretty insulting to tell someone how much you dislike their product without even bothering to give them feedback beyond "I don't like X" and "we don't want to spoil ourselves on the setting."

If the GM is inviting you to a session of brainstorming to come up with something that you enjoy, the least you can do is show up and offer constructive criticism to help the GM meet you halfway. It's disheartening when you're trying to make something and you find out that you're the only one who gives a shit.

>And they did
No, they did not. They helped him to avoid making ones they would explicitly not enjoy. In no way did they actually contribute to making a mutually enjoyable experience for everyone.
He asked "Hey, what do ya'll like, I want to make that specifically for you." and their response was "here's some stuff we don't like".

>No, they did not.

...

>They helped him to avoid making ones they would explicitly not enjoy.

...

> In no way did they actually contribute to making a mutually enjoyable experience for everyone.

10/10 mental gymnastics my dude. Holy shit but your first three sentences contradict each other on several levels.

>it's still pretty insulting to tell someone how much you dislike their product without even bothering to give them feedback beyond "I don't like X" and "we don't want to spoil ourselves on the setting."

The idea that looking behind the curtain spoils the production is hardly new my man. And theater managed to take that as a compliment, rather than getty shit-pissy about it.

Also, "constructive criticism." Kek. That gets trotted out whenever someone says literally anything the creator doesn't like. It is in fact a term that means nothing.

>It's disheartening when you're trying to make something and you find out that you're the only one who gives a shit.

I'm sure the players felt that way, yeah.

Are you fucking stupid. Saying "I DON'T LIKE FISH" when he's asking what you do fucking like is not helpful at all. Blacklisting shit isn't helpful unless you're blacklisting a huge majority of shit and at that point it would still be easier to make a whitelist.

>Kek
Your opinions are trash anyway, but that just seals the deal

reddit spacing

>Like coming up with original content, settings, ideas. Like story and world/character interaction. Don't like wanton violence. Treats the game (perhaps somewhat too) seriously

Good DM's aren't like this, either. Story doesn't come at the expense of your player's choice and fun. World building is fun in theory and for write faggotry, but doesn't have any place DURING a fucking play session.

I think it comes from a very fundemental difference in how people approach the game.

The guy who spend hours making a setting and a campaign is going to be more invested than a player who's making a character with little or no setting knowledge.

I think it's important for the GM and players to establish what they're looking for in a game before even getting down to setting building. If the players want a beer and pretzel game, don't bring your magnum opus fantasy heartbreaker setting.

This. The GM might be doing more work than the players, but players have to do their part in keeping the game moving and making sure everyone is having fun.

>Wow, my players are the complete opposite of this.
>You should find better players.
I got really lucky with my group. I meant to make a 1ish page setting write up, and it bloomed into 4+ pages.

I thought "This is shit, nobody's got time for this stuff" The players not only read it, but asked if I could expand it and put more plot hooks in.

>Always blame the GM
Found the autist

I'm mostly a player, and I can attest to the fact that my GM choosing to include us in worldbuilding has really increased our investment across our games. Getting to see the various locations, major/minor deities, and other shit we helped make is always exciting, particularly if none of the parties have come across it IC before.

>I'm sure the players felt that way, yeah.
Oh yeah, I could tell when they decided to bail the moment the GM asked them to do some legwork.

Nice meme stereotypes, I bet you believe that jews are greedy and deceitful, black fathers always abandon their children, and all white men rape women on a daily basis.
The dumbest thing about your post however is the brain dead assumption that GMs aren't players in other campaigns.

Please don't post on Veeky Forums again, you're lowering the, already nigh-inconceivably low, bar.

tldr: Nice bait mate.

It's not bait. It's a reflection of opinions pretty commonly stated on Veeky Forums. I mean just look at this thread.

OP:
>I noticed these opinions are pretty common on Veeky Forums

You:
>WHY ARE YOUR OPINIONS SO SHIT?

tldr; nice reading comprehension mate.

Y'all are mad about some dumb shit, and it's pretty funny.

Most players are lazy. That's just how it is. The sad truth of RPGs is that by and large players do not give a shit and don't want to put in effort towards the game unless it directly benefits them, and maybe not even then.

If you're playing with players who don't give a shit one way or another then it raises the question "why the fuck am I running for these chodes in the first place?"

Even rolling the dice on roll20 is a better bet than staying with people who can't even put forth the effort to help you run a better game.

Except that's not what either OP or myself said.
OP thinks pasta is real, has no bullshit-radar, and doesn't bother to seek out the actual discussions that despite popular claims do exist, and I had my annual "Newfags! Reeee!" tantrum.

>It's not bait
Yes it is. Whether you know it or not.

>It's a reflection of opinions pretty commonly stated on Veeky Forums.
And every time a threat about "that guy/GM" is posted smart people ignore it and Angry cunts like myself post "just talk to your group you autistic retard". A common sentiment that you completely ignored, just like the fact that people whose games go well don't post threads to say how everything is OK.
If you stopped and thought for five seconds you'd have realized that your post is stupid and good for nothing but starting a fruitless meta discussion exactly like the aforementioned that-guy threads with the clear disadvantage of not having a concrete example for discussion.

That entirely depends on the game in question.