>"So what do you want to play next session? I had this idea: X. We could do Y, if you guys want to, however"
>(everyone replies some variant of "whatever you guys want")
>"Okay, so here's the gist of it" (three paragraphs detailing the campaign pitch) "Do you guys like it?"
>(No reply)
How is this ok???
The worst part is, these aren't your typival "uninterested players". They will show up and have fun playing.
>three paragraphs detailing the campaign pitch
Jesus Christ what the fuck are you doing?
>3 sentences about the hook and objective of the campaign
>3 sentences about the world
>3 sentences about the system
Get them to tell you shit they like, don't take no for an answer but don't be confrontational about it. Just talk about previous games you've played, try to get them talking about their favourite and least favourite parts, both of the mechanics and narrative. Make notes on what everyone says, then when pitching whatever campaign you come up with reference it to try and get the conversation started, point out what parts of the system or premise directly appeal to the same things they've liked from previous campaigns and get them to confirm or deny whether that sounds like a good idea.
I'll just gloss over your grammatical issues and say that, yes, that's still too much. Ten words or less, motherfucker.
>Ten words or less
It's sad what RPGs have turned into
It's sad that you need more than this to hook your players.
Shut the fuck up you little shit, campaign pitches have always had to be snappy. It's called an elevator pitch, and the concept is older than you are.
Why?
If they're not concise and to the point, people won't pay attention to them. When your players see a block of text, no matter how small those "paragraphs" are, they'll roll their eyes and groan and make excuses not to read it. Also, as a side effect, you end up making false promises. You may not mean to, but it'll happen. A short quick pitch grabs your audience's attention immediately, tells them what your shit is about, and gives you a fuckton of leeway about what actually goes in your game.
>if you don't clickbait your players you suck as a DM
>actually explaining what the game is about is not allowed
You're acting like the norm was to write a novella and your players would ever actually read that.
No one came to read your shitty campaign details. They want to actually explore it in character if anything.
You really are a stupid fuck. Of course you should explain what your game is about, or, better yet, show them during the course of the game. But do that AFTER YOU GET THEM HOOKED! This isn't fucking hard.
On one hand you are right. On the other that only applies to a large percentage of people but is not guaranteed to apply to the communication habits of a select group. I can't share the sentiment that you have to be so cynic as to tailor to the lowest denominator when talking to your friends. And of course this discounts a persons own influence on the level of conversation.
>novella
I feel you are only looking at a particular very low investment, unintellectual and additional low general courtesy environment.
It's probably a classic case of your players not wanting to be the ones to make decisions because they don't want to make a decision that somebody else doesn't want. I imagine most TTRPG players are not assertive types, so if they think that they're going to be enjoying themselves no matter what's decided they won't take it upon themselves to make a decision at risk of damaging somebody else's enjoyment.
>No one came to read your shitty campaign details. They want to actually explore it in character if anything.
And then those players come to Veeky Forums a few days later to cry about how their DM won't allow their snowflake character concept because it doesn't mesh with the world that was already created and subsequently ignored.
If you're really that much of an idiot you can't bother to read one page worth of campaign backstory, you can go back to playing your video games. Chances are you're just going to be spending most of the time on your phone bitching about the game anyway.
I've got no idea how to respond to that level of pretension, so I'm just gonna tell you to fuck off you idiot.
(you)
This is what I sent to my players, translated.
>I want to run a campaign about becoming kings. You'd start as nobodies, and eventually build your own stronghold, with your own armies and shit.
>The setting is Birthright. It's a bit more low-magic than most D&D settings, and more human-centric. You'll be starting off in a region that's viking-inspired.
>The system we'll be using is AD&D 2e. The game won't be a meat grinder, but it'll be fairly lethal if you're not careful. We'll rip off Dominion rules from ACKS.
If you can't be bothered to read this, if you need me to hold your hand every single step of the way, I wouldn't want you to be in my game.
This is probably it, because when I talk to them they always seem to read what I say, and they always have fun. How do I "teach" them to be more assertive with what they want?
>whines about "pretension"
>is the one to call other people idiots for doing things he doesn't agree with
>Okay you fucks, if one of you doesn't decide on a campaign in the next five seconds I'm going to kill everybody in this chat starting with myself
Works every time trust me
Sounds boring. I see why they wouldn't respond.
It's just my way of talking. Pretentiousness is not intended.
If you want to insinuate I'm being elitist or something, I don't think that holds up when my point is that you don't have to dumb down text for everyone.
You sound boring, user.
They had previously expressed their interest in a campaign of this style
Then you just have shitty friends. Make new ones.
>not knowing what an elevator pitch is
whew lads