Shit your players do

You never played a game have you?

Have a great day everyone

>Give players 2 weeks to make backstories before first session
>Session 8 and only two players have given me their backstories

>there is nothing wrong with GM having some expectations from the group, especially if they're so minimal ones.
Having players read supplementary material to a campaign that hasn't started yet is like telling someone to read the novel before going to see the movie. If your campaign is so convoluted that it cannot be explained during play, you need to shave off several pounds of filler and exposition so you don't end up boring the players with details that may or may not be relevant.
Quite the opposite, which is why I know the GM in the original post fucked up and how.

>Not developing backstory during play
This was your first and last mistake.

>I need instant gratification or else I'm going to throw a shitfit

>I spend an hour writing this so you're GOING TO READ IT
Protip: Nobody cares and would rather just play the game than read about fantasy setting #8625

>no u

...

>Complain when their fighter loses
>"I made a character to win fights!"
Yes motherfucker, but there's gotta be threat in the fucking story, if you expect to win every fight then just do a descriptive piece about you stomping the face of an army or straight up ask me to fluff every roll so you can beat them by dozens and dozens of damage. You built a character to fight, so to create tension you need people who can fight you and potentially win, and sometimes that happens. You're the reason the rest of the party isn't being mulched right now you entitled little shit-stain.

>not being able to read one page
hello thog

I asked them to read it so that they could jump right into the campaign without having to interrupt the session with questions. Thankfully most of them read what I asked them to but as for the other guy if he can't be bothered to read 1 page of information how can I expect him to give any kind of fuck about the campaign I'm running? I'm running for other players and don't want to cut into their enjoyment by answering the questions of one guy who was too lazy to put in any kind of effort.

These threads always make me feel bad for you guys. Worst I can say about my group I'm running something for now is they spend lots of time fussing over little details and treat the base building aspect like it's a survival videogame on hardcore mode. One guy spent the whole session asking me intermittently if his crab traps had caught anything. Shit, I don't even know what roll that'd be.

Even then I'm not dinging them on their roleplaying, it's more I just don't care for the survival aspect when they're quite obviously not in danger of starving.

Sometimes people have better things to do than read a pamphlet for a setting that they have no reason to care about, which is generally why I put all my campaign shit on a google doc and share it with people so they can read it at their leisure.
>how can I expect him to give any kind of fuck about the campaign I'm running?
By introducing interesting situations for his character to encounter, playing out that character's reaction to said situation, and forming a narrative based around the character's actions as they encounter more situations throughout the course of the campaign. In other words, playing the goddamn game.
>I'm running for other players and don't want to cut into their enjoyment by answering the questions of one guy who was too lazy to put in any kind of effort.
How long are your answers to where answering a question takes that much time out of the campaign? That sounds like a (you) problem right there.

Your GM secretly hates you.
If you're the GM, then the players hate you.

...

Couldn't you just give him 10 minutes before sesion to read the page? Seriously, how long would take him reading one page?

>Sometimes people have better things to do than read a pamphlet for a setting that they have no reason to care about
First: If you don't care about the setting, WHY ARE YOU PLAYING IN IT?
second: Are you really saying that reading ONE PAGE is too much work? If you have any interest in playing the GMs game and don't suffer from something like Dyslexia, then reading a page should not take up more than a minute of time. Are you saying you can't spare even one minute to read this shit?

Lets just call it a hunch

>First: If you don't care about the setting, WHY ARE YOU PLAYING IN IT?
Because the premise sounded interesting and I want to see how it plays out in practice.
>Are you really saying that reading ONE PAGE is too much work?
>Are you saying you can't spare even one minute to read this shit?
Not that it's too much work, just that there might be more important bullshit to focus on than one page for a setting that I haven't even had a chance to interact with.

Besides, anything that's actually important will be made relevant during play. If that's not the case, then reading it in a pamphlet would've been a waste of time anyways.

I'd prefer to call it as it is, you projecting your insecurities onto other people.

Wasn't a GM in this case, but those guys are sometimes my players as well, so I guess it counts.
>A friend, who is known for being a very good GM, proposes a mini-campaign with a very interesting premise for me and some other friends
>Everyone is really hooked about it, more people say they would "totally play that" than there is room for players
>GM gives us an entire fucking month to make player characters
>Even gives us links to the rulebook for convenient download
>Since we both know most of them are lazyfags when it comes to reading, both me and GM offer them help in making their characters, hell, they didn't even had to read the book, just meet up with one of us and we would guide them through the PC creation.
>Despite all that, I was the only person who actually ended up making a character

Apparently, one week was not enough.

>Sometimes people have better things to do than read a pamphlet for a setting that they have no reason to care about, which is generally why I put all my campaign shit on a google doc and share it with people so they can read it at their leisure.
>Reading a piece of paper that contains only information relavent to your character, parsed down into a more digestible form, at your leisure is too much, but if I were running it I'd write a historical narrative that contains all the information, for the players to read at their leisure
lmao?

The difference is that the pamphlet is framed as required reading while my google doc sits there as a reference if people choose to read it on their own.

I don't expect people to read anything I put into the doc, but it's there if people want to learn about the world beyond the scope of the campaign.

Why not just give them the cliff notes version? It shouldn't take a minute to explain how something works in your setting.

Huh. If only he'd taken your advice. Maybe given them, like, a page of notes that they could read in a minute or two... Ah well, the world will never know why he didn't do something like giving them cliff notes.

Nice reading comprehension moron. I'm saying that rather than go through a long-winded diatribe, why not just give them a basic description that answers their question before moving the plot along?

I mean, it should only take a few seconds to describe the broad strokes of how magic works in your setting for example.

Not a dm but my party members.. jesus fuck
>DM tells us to roll up "evil" characters for Curse
>shadar-kai rogue
>Birdperson warlock
>and me. Dwarf monk
>Other two are shades of Chaotic Good. Can't rp or make a decision to save their lives
>Make my dorf an absolute monster. CE demon-worshipping cannibal with 8 Int. Maximum Edge
>Explain to the party ooc that my character is a dog. He NEEDS control or at least guidance or he will do evil and stupid things
>Party proceeds to passively watch me do CE bullshit
Tonight the DM had to yell at them NOT to just go along with my plan to improvise an apparently suicidal rope swing into strahd's castle. When they're pushed into objections I'll back down, because it really is in character to fall in line behind leadership. But the problem is they so rarely do...

I'm going to get the party killed because nobody knows how to say no

>the premise sounded interesting
>wouldn't read a single page about it
>calls the setting document bullshit
Somehow I get the feeling you weren't actually all that interested

>I'm going to get the party killed because nobody knows how to say no
Sounds like a challange

I would rather learn more about the setting through play than reading about it passively through some pamphlet that the GM handed to us as we were leaving.

It is possible to be a good writer and a shit GM, and vice-versa, and if the things written in the pamphlet were important, we'll encounter it during play sooner rather than later. If that's not the case then I would've just been wasting my time by reading irrelevant information in the first place.

>I mean, it should only take a few seconds to describe the broad strokes of how magic works in your setting for example.
a few seconds to explain magic
and a few seconds to explain the general geography
and a few seconds to explain what races there are
and a few seconds to explain what gods exist
and a few seconds to explain which religions are also worshipped
and a few seconds to explain which major countries there are
and a few seconds to explain what kind of beasts there are

OH SHIT, we're already past a minute or two
guess this could have been solved faster by just quickly reading a page of text

>DM: You see the dread vampire before you. Your guts churn with a nameless, animal fear and you know somewhere deep in your soul that you cannot fight this
>Me: I wanna be a vampire. I'm going to attack him
>DM: WHAT?
>player 1: inaudible mumbling
>player 2: *nervous laughter*
>Azmok bares iron teeth in a rusting, rictus grin and lurches into a run. Intent on attacking the lord of this light-forsaken place

My last plan was to simply murder the guy whose sister !not dracula wanted. So yeah, I might just have to full-on go the vampire at this rate

This. I want to be entertained, not read some random pages

>guess this could have been solved faster by just quickly reading a page of text
Or you could try no infodumping so much information into our laps the moment someone asks a question.

I mean, shouldn't most of those questions have been answered already during character creation? Hell, shouldn't most of those questions have been answered just by you introducing the premise to the group?

What drives a man to act like a complete contrarian retard in order to be laughed at or ignored?
Help me understand.

Boredom, loneliness, and an inability to do better.

>Not that it's too much work, just that there might be more important bullshit to focus on than one page for a setting that I haven't even had a chance to interact with.
You know, perhaps the GM didn't want to waste EVERYONE'S LIMITED PLAY TIME on stuff that you could READ OUTSIDE THE GAME?

>important plot hook happening
>group decides to focus on a background female npc for some reason
>it becomes a dick measuring contest
>becouse I like seeing them have fun, I follow their retardwagon
>dating game show happens
>bard easily charmstomps the competition
>as soon as the session ends, salty paladin / barbarian duo complain about the "derailed" session
>in the background, bard rolls sexual performance
You win some, you lose some.

>Treat NPC's like shit and complain that no one likes them
Your NPCs are just unlikable. PCs don't fuck with people they like, and more importantly, they don't let other people fuck with them.

Again, it shouldn't take that long to answer a basic question with a general answer. If I ask you how magic works in your setting and you spend ten minutes going into the metaphysical mechanics of how spellcasting works, that's you wasting our time with TMI, not me.

Remember kids, keep it simple.

>Remember kids, keep it simple.
and even simpler would be not having to make asides and just have the players read one page

They don't read the class they're playing even in their lives depend on it.

It's actually only one guy, but

>Playing Darksun
>One player rolls up a half-giant, named Gorgath.
>Whenever he introduces himself (which is frequently, since lots of small groups of desert wanderers), he uses a new appellation. So far we've had
>Gorgath the Child Rapist
>Gorgath the Kid Fiddler
>Gorgath the Toddler Stealer
>Gorgath the Baby Fucker
>Gorgath the Loli Hunter
>Gorgath the Goat Grabber
>Gorgath the Filly Fondler
>Gorgath the Infinitely Endowed
>Gorgath the Rectum Wrecker
>Gorgath the Cunt Destroyer
>Gorgath the Anal Annihilator
>Gorgath the Epitome of All That Is Male
>Gorgath the Bringer of Rectal Ragnarok
>Gorgath the Dong Expander
>Gorgath the Prowling Prolapse
>Gorgath of Gonadia

If only he'd introduced the premise to the group in writing. On a piece of paper, even!

Christ man. I feel your pain man.

Welp, that's that guyish, but actually pretty hilarious

Simpler than that would just be to run the game using a prewritten setting so people already know how the setting works in the first place if answering questions about the setting sets you off that much.

Just saying.

You do realize that in your specific scenario the party would’ve litteraly been forced to read the document to even join right?

Sure. Read the fucking setting info for ebberon, it's more than 20 pages long, you fucking shitter.

How exactly was anyone in the party capable of making a Cleric without anyone ever asking how gods and shit works within the setting?

If you're so poor at explaining basic concepts about your own setting through words, chances are you're just as equally flawed at explaining basic concepts on paper.

>See how badly a guy's life got fucked up by a fey pact
>Someone in their family got fucked up by a fey pact
>Opportunity comes up to make a fey pact
>They go for it

They're fools, but they're my fools.

I was thinking something like Star Wars d20, Conan d20, or even WoW d20.

Also, nobody gives a shit about Eberon

To be honest if a player doesn't give enough of a fuck about my game to read a one fucking page then I'm not sure if I want that player at my table.
Unless we're talking about a setting which everyone in the game happens to know, how the fuck is having to read a whole sourcebook better than reading a single page with most crucial information compressed?

>session zero
This is where you fucked up.

>how dare you waste people's time with a single page of info relevant to their character, you're a shitter for wanting people to do work outside the game
>it would have been better if you had given them 50+ pages of info, only 3 of which would have been relevant to their character, so they could read up outside the game
Ok you got me to reply.

>asking players to read and comprehend one page is too much
Lmao. I even do this for my DMs who can't even write at a high school level and come up with the dumbest settings imaginable then describe them in vague terms. Your players have nothing to complain about.

I'm asking this completely separately from the ongoing discussion, but what the fuck is everyone's problem with sessions 0? I've never done one yet, but it always seemed like a pretty great concept that would actually prevent many problems which came up in various games I ran.

Dude I would agree with you except it's one fucking page.

Session zero is showing, before you've even begun the game, that you have no fucking clue how to improvise. If you can't improvise, you're a shit GM. Ergo, session zero is a crutch for shitty GMs. A long, boring, group-timewasting crutch at that

>Unless we're talking about a setting which everyone in the game happens to know, how the fuck is having to read a whole sourcebook better than reading a single page with most crucial information compressed?
Because most people are familiar with shit like LotR, Star Wars, Conan the Barbarian, etc. that you can go in with a basic understanding of how shit works without having to stop to answer questions every so often.

>Sometimes people have better things to do than read a pamphlet for a setting that they have no reason to care about
Fair enough. In that case, they also have better things to do than play an RPG campaign.
You are right about the Google docs though.

If it's one page then why is it so hard to explain how shit works during play? The knife cuts both ways man.

>Fair enough. In that case, they also have better things to do than play an RPG campaign.
Just because people don't want to read a pamphlet doesn't mean that they don't want to play the game though. I mean, I threw out most of my instruction manuals when I was younger, even for games that I consider my own personal favorites even to this day.

Because if it's read before the game starts, it won't break momentum, even for what would be a short interruption. It might only take 6 seconds to explain that Blahistan's king's power is checked by a parliament of the upper nobility, but having someone blurt out why does the king care about the reaction to his new policy breaks immersion and the scene's momentum when the players are being tasked with winning over one particular guy.

Wait, I think we have different definitions of sessions 0 then.

>Coming to terms with your players not really caring about playing characters or taking part in a story.
We spent six hours making characters and not a single one could describe their character's personality or even why that character is taking part in the campaign at all. I then tried to ask if there was anything in particular they would want to do in the game: if there was a goal they wanted to pursue, any theme they'd like to see explored, anything to help me craft a game that they would be interested in participating in. Again, I got nothing. I know not everyone is as into the roleplaying and storytelling aspects of these games as I am, but it still makes me sad when they give off the impression that they could be doing anything else and still be as entertained.

No, you just haven't thought thruogh the implications of a session zero. There is absolutely nothing in it that can possibly be gained if your GM can improvise worth a damn.

>Just because people don't want to read a pamphlet doesn't mean that they don't want to play the game though.
If they don't want to read an A4 handout, they don't want to play in my game sufficiently. Now, I'm lucky, because my players actually like my fluff and setting info, most of which is optional for them to read, but if a rando players didn't even bother reading the basics then they're going to have made a character who doesn't fit, doesn't have any ties to the setting, and can just fuck right off.

Because then you're being disrespectful of other's players time. If no-one read it, maybe you have a point. But if everyone else had the decency to read it, then you're the one slowing down the game because you couldn't be bothered. You're the kind of player who will flake after the first session because "you didn't get it and it didn't make sense and no-one explained anything". Fuck those kinds of players.

>Because if it's read before the game starts, it won't break momentum, even for what would be a short interruption.
How long are your answers to where they legitimately break the flow of game to that much of a degree? You need to learn some brevity.
> It might only take 6 seconds to explain that Blahistan's king's power is checked by a parliament of the upper nobility, but having someone blurt out why does the king care about the reaction to his new policy breaks immersion and the scene's momentum when the players are being tasked with winning over one particular guy.
Yet at the same time, why does the king care about the reaction his new policy? I mean, it's important enough to be used in the campaign and someone bothered to ask the question so wouldn't it make sense to give a brief answer?

>There is absolutely nothing in it that can possibly be gained if your GM can improvise worth a damn.
See, this is because you're a beer and pretzels player who's only contribution to the game is looking up from your phone and saying "What? Oh, I hit [NPC] with my sword. Oh, yeah, I got a twenty, time for phat loot" when talking to the questgiver.

Yes, the GM CAN improvise, but it gets players so much more invested if they actually have some idea of what their character is like and not just a blank sheet that becomes a one note character based on their first three actions of the game.

except for the fact that the players could make characters fitting each other, can start with a goal in mind, can prevent players making brooder characters and also get a preliminary feel for where they start. It also gives them the possibility to say "this particular place seems bad for a starting point. can we start in location Y instead?"

And foremost: Just because the GM can improvise doesn't mean that he has to do it in the hardest possible way. It's like saying "Why should you shovel dirt with a shovel? A good worker should be able to shovel dirt with just a spoon"

>How long are your answers to where they legitimately break the flow of game to that much of a degree?
not him, but even asking the question breaks immersion. You are immediately reminded that YOU don't know that, not the character.
>I mean, it's important enough to be used in the campaign and someone bothered to ask the question so wouldn't it make sense to give a brief answer?
sure. You could e.g. write it down in a short description of the countries

Considering we're talking about the same thing, I don't see how one really has much to do with another. Sessions 0 just help to clarify expectations both sides have from each other and make the whole thing more coherent. It prevents miscommunications. In your weird terms it doesn't mean the GM can't improvise, but it shows him "in which direction" he is supposed to be improvising, without him needing to figure it out through deduction and trial and error, with almost a guaranteed few fuckups at the beginning that can be averted this way.

>If they don't want to read an A4 handout, they don't want to play in my game sufficiently.
Maybe they expect the GM to do their job and answer simple questions with simple answers rather than giving them the boot.
>Because then you're being disrespectful of other's players time.
How? If I'm bothering to ask a question pertaining to what's happening during game, it means that I'm interested enough to want to know more about what's happening.

Would you rather I just sat in a corner, playing games on my smartphone for the rest of the night until you tell us to roll initiative?

>it means that I'm interested enough to want to know more about what's happening.
yes, but it also means you are not interested enough to spend one minute reading a sheet of paper before the session

>One page of lore
>Too convoluted to bother

>How long are your answers to where they legitimately break the flow of game to that much of a degree? You need to learn some brevity.
Any answer breaks the flow of the game, as you've left the minds of the characters and whatever they're up to to answer a question that they really ought to know the answer to.

>Yet at the same time, why does the king care about the reaction his new policy?
Because it can be checked by the upper nobility. Weren't you paying attention?

>I mean, it's important enough to be used in the campaign and someone bothered to ask the question so wouldn't it make sense to give a brief answer?
Yes, it would. It would make even more sense to know about it beforehand so the question never has to be asked in the first place, thus keeping the session coherent.

>not him, but even asking the question breaks immersion.
Not him but what kinda asinine bullshit is this? How do you expect people to know what the fuck is going on unless they ask questions?

You realize not every GM is going to bother writing shit down beforehand right?

>Maybe they expect the GM to do their job
Ah, it all makes sense now. It's the GM's job. Not something they're doing for fun, fuck them the GM exists solely for the sake of the players. You're an entitled piece of shit, but have a (You) anyways.

>I mean, it's important enough to be used in the campaign and someone bothered to ask the question so wouldn't it make sense to give a brief answer?
Because it's never a fucking brief answer. People who don't bother reading the setting info will nitpick and ask further questions when things don't make sense and then end up arguing for 15 minutes plus as to why something doesn't make sense with their preconceived notions.

If you read the setting info you could ask questions about it before but no, you've got to bloody hold up the game and ask at least 5-6 questions. Every goddamn time.

It's frustrating since I KNOW what a dick move it would be to murderhobo my way through content or wipe the party. But I mean come on.. we're supposed to know one another and I cannot for the life of me understand how a passive bird-man and gloomy girl would want to be anywhere near my filthy, blood-crusted feral puncher. Or what wisdom compels them to follow me

>How? If I'm bothering to ask a question pertaining to what's happening during game, it means that I'm interested enough to want to know more about what's happening.
If you were that interested, you'd have fucking read the notes to know about what's happening. Obviously you weren't.

Not him, but I'm willing to bet a fiver you never, ever run a game.
Players treat NPCs like shit when they don't see instant reward for playing nice. And god forbids if you try to pull "initially hostile character that will warm up toward the party as the quest(s) continue", because players will ALWAYS treat such character with contempt and aggression
In fact, this makes running games easier, because people very easily fall for most shallow guises.

>But I mean come on.. we're supposed to know one another and I cannot for the life of me understand how a passive bird-man and gloomy girl would want to be anywhere near my filthy, blood-crusted feral puncher. Or what wisdom compels them to follow me
They shy away from PVP because they think you're having fun and want you to keep having fun, even if their fun suffers for it.

You played yourself, congratulations.

you can run a game where occasionally you break immersion, but having to break it less often is always better

>Any answer breaks the flow of the game, as you've left the minds of the characters and whatever they're up to to answer a question that they really ought to know the answer to.
At some point you really have to make peace with the fact that the character can only work off of the player's decisions.
>Because it can be checked by the upper nobility.
So if they don't like they can just veto it or is the process different than that?
>Yes, it would. It would make even more sense to know about it beforehand so the question never has to be asked in the first place, thus keeping the session coherent.
Buddy, if I can learn everything there is to know about your setting by reading one page of text, either your campaign is thinner than the paper it was written on or the text is so small it makes YGO cards look legible by comparison.

...

Or maybe you are projecting your own insecurity about the ugly truth you are shit GM/your GM hates you, instead trying to pretend it;s others projecting over your sorry ass?

>Because it's never a fucking brief answer. People who don't bother reading the setting info will nitpick and ask further questions when things don't make sense and then end up arguing for 15 minutes plus as to why something doesn't make sense with their preconceived notions.
Can you try that again without projecting next time? Because not everyone is a shit player who does that shit just to be an asshole. Hell, my first good GM was the one who taught me to always ask questions if I'm unsure about things and it only helped me get more into how tabletop works.
>If you read the setting info you could ask questions about it before but no, you've got to bloody hold up the game and ask at least 5-6 questions. Every goddamn time.
I'd probably still have questions because your notes are probably barebones to have it all fit onto one page.